For Immediate Release

The Fatherhood Coalition Files Federal Suit Seeking Overturn of 209A Restraining Order Law

Federal complaint accuses Massachusetts Family Court judges of violating the Constitution by discriminating openly against males

BOSTON, SEPT. 7, 1999—The Fatherhood Coalition and six individual men today filed a federal anti-discrimination lawsuit against the judges in Massachusetts state courts.

The suit alleges that Massachusetts judges are routinely violating the U.S. Constitution. It specifies violations of the 5th and 14th amendment rights to due process, of the 14th amendment right to equal protection, and of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The suit asks the federal courts to step in and stop widespread anti-male discrimination in Massachusetts Probate courts. The plaintiffs also seek a ruling that the 209A restraining order law violates the U.S. Constitution, ask for an immediate injunction against enforcement of it.

The lawsuit asks for an injunction against the unequal administration of justice in the areas of domestic violence and abuse petitions. It asserts that each of the six individual male plaintiffs and the Fatherhood Coalition have suffered gender-based discrimination by the justices in the Probate and Family Courts and District Courts of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit was filed this morning in Federal District Court in Boston, and announced at a formal press conference on the statehouse steps.

Defendants in the suit are the roughly 40 justices of the Probate and Family Courts. These women and men adjudicate dissolutions of marriage, alimony and child support, child custody and visitation and division of marital assets.

The suit charges that the plaintiffs "and other men similarly situated" have been irreparably damaged by the "customs and rules" of the commonwealth’s courts which, in restraining order situations:

• Only allow a perfunctory hearing without full due process and without rules of evidence, after a male resident has been ordered out of his home.
• Permit so called "victim witness advocates" to act as defacto unlicensed lawyers for women who pursue what are often exaggerated accounts of domestic abuse concocted for the purpose of gaining full possession of the homes of the plaintiffs and similarly situated persons.

Summary of Individual Cases

A summary of the individual injustices referenced in the group lawsuit:

• In Carroll v. Carroll, the wife was awarded the husband’s entire retirement pension, his marital home, and virtually his entire life savings.
• In Allen v. Allen, the former husband was found in contempt of a court payment order, even though he presented evidence that he was not working and was receiving unemployment insurance, and the counter argument offered by the other side was merely speculation without evidence.
• In Scanlon v. Scanlon, Judge Anna Doherty made no pretense of due process, threatening Mr. Scanlon with imprisonment even before he was allowed to speak in his own behalf. It imposed a payment order on him beyond his ability to pay, and did not give him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
• In Hunter v. Hunter, Judge Christina Harms imprisoned a husband for his failure to commit a fraud: she wanted him to pay child support from proceeds of a student loan, which would have been a fraudulent misapplication of this loan.
• In Roine v. Roine, where the parties reached a mutually satisfactory separation agreement, Judge Christina Harms on her own advised the wife that she could obtain a better result and need not accept the agreement

  QUOTES FROM TEXT OF LAWSUIT: "These and similar examples of discrimination against males are widespread in Massachusetts Probate and Family court system. This discrimination is shown by: a widespread refusal to accept the testimony of male litigants as equal in credibility with female litigants. a widespread refusal of the Court to allow males the same opportunities for the society and companionship of their children as are allowed to women. intimidation by Family Services Offices, and coercion into accepting unfair custody agreements, as a consequence of institutional bias. in situations in which the parties reach agreements on their own, the court may still intervene on the side of the female in a biased manner."

The suit asks the Federal Court to find the Chapter 209A law unconstitutional and to forbid the courts from further enforcement of it.

The suit also asks the Federal District Court to "issue declaratory and injunctive relief" and to command the Family Courts "to adopt measures to prevent discrimination against men in the Probate and Family court system."

The suit was drawn up and filed by lawyer David C. Grossack of Hull.

The plaintiffs in the suit include: James Nollett, 40 Franklin Street, Woburn; James Carroll of Bedford; David Merchant of Vermont; Donald Roines, of Hull; Richard Scanlon of Duxbury; Earl Henry Sholley of Holliston, and The Fatherhood Coalition, whose members, says the suit, "consist predominantly of persons of the male gender who suffered the kinds of injuries described herein."

###