~ archived since 2018 ~

Custody-By-Cop Wreacks Havoc on Men, Evicorates Due Process.

GreatBasinPower · 2026-05-03T02:13:05+00:00

As shown in the Urban Dictionary. A practice employed by police every day, in every state, in every county. A practice that needs to end....

GreatBasinPower

May 3, 2026

28 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Custody-By-Cop Wreacks Havoc on Men, Evicorates Due Process.
Author	GreatBasinPower
Upvotes	28
Comments	16
Date	May 3, 2026 2:13 AM UTC (2 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1t28pqe/custodybycop_wreacks_havoc_on_men_evicorates_due/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/custody-by-cop-wreacks-havoc-on-men-evicorates-due.1579486 https://theredarchive.com/post/1579486

Comments

[–]nrverma 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]emo-ctrl 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslfingerspell 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]emo-ctrl 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslfingerspell 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]emo-ctrl 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslfingerspell -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]emo-ctrl 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We are talking custody

There doesn’t have to be any factual basis in nearly 45 states for a parent to misuse the legal system to destroy a parents access to a child because the State Statutes violate the Supremacy Clause

So your question DOES include a loaded question

first, second and third order effects

Actually here is how the first amendment ties in

Here is how the Fourteenth Ammendment applies

Meyer was decided before the Court incorporated First Amendment protections into the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of "Liberty" which is why it references only the Fourteenth Amendment. In a later case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court reasserted both Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska 100% within the First Amendment context. When you face arguments that parental rights are not protected by the First Amendment, this case defeats that arguement:

By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach—indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases.

[–]aslfingerspell -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There doesn’t have to be any factual basis in nearly 45 states for a parent to misuse the legal system to destroy a parents access to a child because the State Statutes violate the Supremacy Clause

This is a bold claim. Name me a state that does this and point me to the exact statute or case law in which there does not have to be "any factual basis." Police need probable cause to make arrests, for example, and that requires evidence such that a reasonable person would think a crime has been committed. Are you telling me there are not hearings, no sworn testimony, nothing needed?

Meyer v. Nebraska struck down a law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to children. Parents have a right to teach their child, but that is not the same as having custody of a child.

Child custody is not a First Amendment issue, and the Supremacy Clause is about how superior federal law prevails when there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction between the right to teach a child a foreign language and a law that determines custody in the aftermath of a report of violence. Those are separate issues.

Even if the First Amendment was involved, note that even the Second Amendment can be validly constrained: in US v. Rahimi the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibited firearm possession by those with restraining orders 8-1.

Domestic violence is handled at the state level under police powers (reserved to them under the 10th Amendment) because the power to control domestic violence is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states.

If anything, federal courts are famously reluctant to not want to get involved in domestic issues.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/689/

In a child custody case brought pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, for instance, the Court held void a writ issued by a Federal District Court to restore a child to the custody of the father. "As to the right to the control and possession of this child, as it is contested by its father and its grandfather, it is one in regard to which neither the Congress of the United States nor any authority of the United States has any special jurisdiction." In re Burrus, 136 U. S., at 594.

The Supreme Court is very explicit about state courts being superior about determining child custody.

We conclude, therefore, that the domestic relations exception, as articulated by this Court since Barber, divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees. Given the long passage of time without any expression of congressional dissatisfaction, we have no trouble today reaffirming the validity of the exception as it pertains to divorce and alimony decrees and child custody orders.

This is because

As a matter of judicial economy, state courts are more eminently suited to work of this type than are federal courts, which lack the close association with state and local government organizations dedicated to handling issues that arise out of conflicts over divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.

[–]emo-ctrl 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is legalized extortion

Here are its effects (only a portion of facts, there is much more)

• ⁠85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

Father Factor in Incarceration – Even after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds. A 2002 Department of Justice survey of 7,000 inmates revealed that 39% of jail inmates lived in mother-only households. Approximately forty-six percent of jail inmates in 2002 had a previously incarcerated family member. One-fifth experienced a father in prison or jail.

Father Factor in Crime – A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent

Father Factor in Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.

Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.

Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.

• ⁠43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census] • ⁠90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census] • ⁠80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978] • ⁠71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999] • ⁠63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census] • ⁠85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control] • ⁠90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28] • ⁠71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools] • ⁠75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children] • ⁠70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988] • ⁠85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992] • ⁠Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999] • ⁠citation (https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/)

[–]Darth_Skeptus 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslfingerspell -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

You haven't actually shown how this affects due process. You're just reiterating the claim of the original post, with the added conspiracy theory that lawyers advise their clients to lie which you alsp haven't provided evidence for.

Either way, people lying in court isn't a due process issue. This post is a legal word salad.

Now, go start and argument. When he raises his voice, she calls the cops, ge gets removed. This is enough for a restraining order

Show me the statue or case law that says claiming someone raised their voice in an argument is the standard.

The original post says "custody by cop" is practiced in every state every day, so there should be plenty of evidence.

At no time is he given a chance, a fair chance, to stay in the home

Show me the state law that has this procedure.

[–]emo-ctrl 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Buddy when you use the term ‘conspiracy theory’, you’ve already discredited your sophist argument. You are unable to address the ideas and have resorted to labeling and name calling.

Look, with the facts in front of your eyes please offer a plausible argument which explains how the custody issue is not part of the system creating fatherless families.

Also address the rights arguments presented. Are you saying children have no right to see fathers without those fathers being extorted? In what world with the Constitutional Ammendments is that not ‘color of law’ and a complete infringement on basic human rights of the children?

Go ahead and convince us chief, because Supreme Court Case law underpinned parental rights and you are splitting hairs and justifying the unjustifiable.

Be well

[–]aslfingerspell 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a conspiracy theory because it literally alleges a conspiracy. When someone alleges that lawyers advise their clients to make false abuse claims, they are saying that two people are secretly working together for a nefarious purpose. That's a conspiracy.

No evidence was presented in support of this claim.

Are you saying children have no right to see fathers without those fathers being extorted?

Extortion involves money, and child custody in itself doesn't involve money.

Child support and child custody can separate issues. Even if a state makes child custody contingent on child support, this would still be adjudicated first or capable of being challenged.

please offer a plausible argument which explains how the custody issue is not part of the system creating fatherless families.

I am not saying that custody issues don't contribute to fatherlessness. I'm saying that domestic violence reports don't violate due process.

In what world with the Constitutional Ammendments is that not ‘color of law’ and a complete infringement on basic human rights of the children?

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the states if not prohibited to the states nor delegated to the federal government.

Power over child custody and domestic violence is not prohibited to the states. It is also not delegated to the federal government.

Therefore, it is a state law issue.

Also, what do you think "color of law" means?

because Supreme Court Case law underpinned parental rights

Parents have a free speech right to teach their children different languages. As already explained, Meyer v. Nebraska has nothing to do with custody determination or domestic violence.

Child custody and domestic violence is almost entirely a state law issue, as my Supreme Court case has already affirmed.

[–]emo-ctrl 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aslfingerspell 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago* (0 children) | Copy Link