I have so far heard from about 160 parents, all but three being men.  First let me say that, although these are only stories, there have been corroborating details in some cases, and one telltale corroborating clue is that the vast majority of these men have been slighted by one judge in particular, so I think we can safely say a credible pattern has emerged.  Further, by way of corroboration, the truly horrible stories that I have heard were internally consistent.  These people essentially did not contradict themselves.

Going back over my records of the last four years, I note that at least three men were victims of murder attempts by their ex's or wives.  In one case, a man was run over and had both legs broken.  She got custody of the children, at variance with legislative guidelines.  In another case, a man was also run over by his ex, and yet she got custody of the children.  In another case, the man was shot twice in the chest by his wife.  In this case, she had had a previous record of child abuse, and perhaps because this man held an important political position, he managed to get custody of the children.  In another case, a wife shot at her husband.  This man not only lost custody of his son but was also assessed an exorbitant amount of Achild@ support^[1] to the extent that he was left with less than $80 a week to live on.

In one bizarre case, a man and his wife had their son snatched away from them by the Children and Youth Agency and a local judge, who stated in court, AIt is a pleasure to take your child from you.@  This son had been an honor student in high school, but later was placed in foster care in a dysfunctional family where the female head of household had a criminal record.  Within a few months his grades plummeted and he finally dropped out of school and, the last I knew, the boy was in jail.  I have since spoken personally with this man and his wife, who insist this judge gave no reason whatsoever for taking the child. 

In another case, a woman stated in court that her husband was unfit because he was taking mind-altering drugs.  In fact, these were prescription drugs and the husband had a letter from his doctor explaining this and their action.  The judge refused to look at the papers from the doctor.  This woman had written a book about her experiences with aliens in outer space.  She told the judge in court that she had had sex in outer space with aliens with her children present.  The judge allowed that strange things sometimes happen to people and we have no right to disbelieve this woman.  As for the husband, he was practically barred from speaking in his defense and the judge refused to look at a letter from his physician that would have cleared him of the uncorroborated drug abuse charge.  As a result, this father, at the time of this writing, has not seen his children for over 2 years.  He was assigned a psychologist whose courtroom statements were so biased that she was eventually dismissed from the case.  Although, this psychologist's statements were believed by the first judge,  in subsequent proceedings in a different courtroom, another judge said in court to the wife:  AYou are the biggest liar I have ever heard in my life.@

Another man had lost custody because his wife had made unsubstantiated assertions about him in court.  He had difficulty even getting visitation with his children.  Children and Youth allowed his wife, who was mentally disturbed, to have complete control of these children, even overriding the father=s desire to visit with them.  One day, one of the children was found dead.  A Children and Youth worker came to this man and said he would let him have custody of the other children but that he must keep his mouth shut about the dead child or else he would never see his children again. As in the case of the boy snatched from an intact family without justification given by the judge, there seems to be a pattern that some judges, once they make a mistake, continue to make more and more mistakes to cover this up. Nor do I wish to imply that all Lancaster judges are incompetent. We have identified one in particular who stands out from the pack in that she listens to both sides and makes decisions independently of opinions by Aexperts@ with a a track record of lying and misrepresenting the truth. not surprisingly, this judge was not chosen by the Lancaster political machine.

I received a call from a second wife whose husband was dying of cancer.  His ex went every month to Domestic Relations to have his support increased.  The DRS willingly complied with her requests.  Yet this mother refused to let him see his daughter.  Imagine the anguish of this dying man.

Of the women I have heard from, one lost custody of her son, apparently without much justification; however, the father was a millionaire and the owner of a large company in Lancaster County.  She must pay this millionaire father a very large proportion of her meager earnings.  This story may seem to deviate somewhat from the others, but in fact it is similar, in that it underscores the tendency for some local judges to assign custody not based on the child's interests but rather on the judge's own personal interests.  The judges who routinely give custody to women are playing politically safe.  Giving custody to a wealthy businessman might also be on the safe side if this businessman is well connected.

One man was evicted from his house by a mentally unstable woman who had made an unsuccessful bid to take over his business in the home.  When he closed out their joint account, she staged an incident, running to the neighbors' homes and shouting help.  The man was not even in pursuit of her.  He simply had wanted his car keys, which she had maliciously hidden in her purse.  Because this woman had spoken of an extramarital affair, he later contested paternity of their child, born after the separation.  She threatened with an innuendo:  AMaybe the baby will be hurt when they do the blood test.  You don't want that to happen, do you?@

Five days before the paternity hearing, the baby died of unknown causes.