Thank you, Alyssa. We appreciate your kind words & support here on the KZfaq community. We are happy to hear the video helped clarify things for you.

Harming children is a $50,000,000,000 a year industry. The state gets incentives for filtering child support through the court and ruling against shared or altered custody arrangements no matter what is "best for the child." They do not prosecute for perjury. Their primary incentive is the money and you have no due process or constitutional rights in Family Court. A Guardian ad litem may be assigned to your case to give the illusion of a true trial, but if he or she is an attorney that individual has a significant conflict of interest and little to NO TRAINING ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT. He or she will charge up to $500/hr to do nothing. He will drag your case out for as long as possible despite laws forbidding such actions. This "Color of Law '' is illegal, but when you try to have them removed or elicit the help of your state's Disciplinary Counsel, you'll find that they have NO OVERSIGHT because they were court appointed. And despite no oversight or training, he or she has immunity. When you try to appeal, you'll discover the same thing. BAR associations, which are private entities, have filled the courts and legislation with attorneys who have pledged allegiance to the BAR as their trade labor union. FOLLOW THE MONEY. IT'S COMING FROM YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY TO MAKE THE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS RICH AND OUR CHILDREN PAY THE PRICE. But there is a specific appointed time during the entire process that allows the "victim" to expose the corruption that has been done in darkness and bring it into the light for all to see. Only a few know about this powerful resource available. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

Thank you for your kind words! We are happy to help.

I would advise that you gather as much evidence as possible before presenting that to the court. As tragic as it sounds, without proper evidence it may be difficult to dispute this.

As a former Foster Care individual, this is definitely not the case. The guardian ad litem represents the child and their best interest. The GAL acts as an attorney on their behalf. Because of the nature of them literally representing a child, they make more educated decisions on what actually is best for the child from a ground level. The Guardian ad litem can petition the court if they find a decision is not in the child’s best interest. This creates an even better back up layer to protect children.

@@MrStone-ye7ch Thanks for your reply. But nothing you said demonstrates how attorneys are qualified to represent the best interests of a child. Clearly, an attorney who is a guardian ad litem is SUPPOSED TO represent the best interests of the child. But that is very different than having the intelligence or work ethic to actually execute that mission. It's the difference between "supposed to be" versus "actually is". Perhaps you yourself encountered a guardian ad litem that was competent....and that's awesome. But in my own family court journey, I came across approximately 30 family court practitioners and attorneys. And I also constantly hear from many attorneys and parents that the assigned guardian ad litem is incompetent. I made an entire docu-series detailing how family court practitioners are lazy, incompetent, gender biased against fathers, and/or corrupted by the child support system. *My docu-series details the exact actions of these family court practitioners that are far below the expectations of a competent professional. Specifically, I discuss how there are more than 10 best interest factors to consider, and all of the family court practitioners ignored the vast majority of them. As the father in the case, I was the only one who brought in evidence and testimony to discuss the best interest factors and forced the judge to pay attention to the best interest factors. Even the lawyers in the case didn't thoroughly assess the best interests...not even close. *I don't think 100% of them are incompetent. But it's in the range of 80 to 90%. And that explains why family court is so broken. *One question to ask is: Is there any performance evaluation system in place, anywhere in America, where family attorneys or guardian ad litem attorneys are formally evaluated by the other parties in a case, to determine if that person's work is competent or thorough? And if there is no such system to evaluate them, then there is no way to weed out the competent versus the incompetent professionals. And if you have no way to weed out the incompetent professionals, then the industry becomes a breeding ground for the lazy and incompetent professionals.

@@FatherX2022in my state GAL can be a volunteer position with no legal background. So at least here, they serve a purpose outside of being an additional attorney. I imagine official attorneys belong to a court, or they belong to a firm with interests, or they belong to a parent, but the idea at least here is that GALs are supposed to ‘belong’ to the kid and not to another interested entity? But of course family court, from what I understand, is just short of being only a display the government made up to pretend like they care about children at all. So perhaps it is just another attorney

@@leftalone9881 Thank you for sharing that. I have actually heard that in some states you don't have to be an attorney to be a guardian ad litem. In my opinion, that still leaves the open question: Since the lives of our children matter immensely, does each GAL have the intelligence, work ethic, and neutrality to actually help make smart decisions about the futures of our children? And is there a legitimate audit mechanism to make sure that any particular GAL is actually adding value to the lives of children? To your other point on family court, you are correct that family courts caring about the best interest of kids is just a marketing slogan. A primary driver of family court is the federal title IV-D funding program...Where the federal government pays the states more money for collecting more child support...Which incentivizes the states to force one parent to become a non-custodial, child support paying parent, so the state can get more federal funding. This conflict of interest has been well established.

That is not a fact. In fact the data is the opposite. Most of the times when a father fight for custody they win exactly what they are asking for over 93% of the time.

Savvy and where are getting your statistics? Please provide your source, until then don't comment trying to down play someone else's struggles because l know the real true statistics and it goes along perfectly with what this person said, but l definitely need to know where you got those statistics

@@sonnythebigdummy6151 That’s probably a mother that’s bitter they didn’t get 100% full custody. Spending over $50k and counting and not being able to see my child for going on 5 years was not what I asked for