The Findings

Findings are supposed to be based upon facts.

Technically they are called Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law. What happens in Family Court, however, is that allegations need no facts to substantiate them. Allegations can stand as facts and the making of an allegation in a Findings document can create a fact where none existed before.

Follow me through my own case as I point out some of the instances in which the Hawaii Family Court has abused their authority to convict me of being a bad parent and has denied visitation with my kids.

Here is the very short version. For detailed information, click on "Hers" (in pdf), "In Truth," and "Mine," at right.

Finding	Facts
A finding of fact can be a conclusion of law and a conclusion of law can be a finding of fact. Or anything that we say can be construed against Father with impunity.	Prosecutors often have to cover their tracks when abbrogating constitutional rights of the defendant, non-custodial, target parent in cases of child alienation. In general, a finding of fact must be made and a conclusion of law must be drawn from that finding. In the Hawaii Family Court--and in my case--findings of facts are often based upon the making of the allegation itself. In my case, unsupported allegations have been made in every court appearance by my ex since 2000. These unsupported allegations are permitted as facts and these facts, based upon unsupported allegations are used to prove points of law such as abuse that was non-existent, existed. The prosecutor wants you, the non-custodial parent, to feel like the perpetrator, even though you were not the one who kidnapped the children, did not want the marriage to end, and did not deserve to be denied visitation for the last eight years.
Prosecutors are free to change the historical time-line of events, omit the custodial parent's aggressive and adversarial legal actions, and recharacterize the non-custodial parent's defensive legal filings to see his children as abuse.	In my case, the prosecutor lies that the custodial parent initiated a UCCJEA action (The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) prior to a bifurcated divorce / child-custody action. The divorce was prompted in Virginia by me after my ex'es friends passed me information that she was planning to initiate divorce in the jurisdiction in which she abducted the children after she acheived her 180 days of residency. I failed to get custody of the children in our home jurisdiction because my ex invited me to Hawaii and served me with a Temporary Restraining Order upon arriving in the year 2000. Even though I was providing her with a monthly allowance, in 2003 she initiated child custody and visitation issues to increase her child support amount through the state sponsored agency. By changing the order in which these issues arose, omitting her own adversarial and underhanded legal tactics, and making the claim that by filing motions to see my kids I am a perpetrator, my ex is able to claim that I am an abusive, controlling husband.
Credible Testimony vs testimony that is not credible	Family Court judges have to cut the birthday cake with a chain saw. They know none of the facts (*allegedly*) and are influenced by the lawyer who will best preserve their job as a judge on a bench in the most abusive court system in the country. When Pro Se defendants, such as my self, present a case, these judges are permitted to ignore all facts and constitutional rights because, well, most of us don't know our constitutional rights and we're supposed to trust this person in this position of power. These judges may confirm unsupported and hearsay allegations from the plaintiff without incurring any threat of job instability. In fact, these judges will be lauded for protecting the mother's of the children that the father wishes to have visitation with. When no threat ever existed to the mother or children, they are happy to confirm that there is a current and ongoing threat.
Why?	Well, the judge helps support a community of people who are eager to prove spousal and child abuse where none occurred because the non-custodial parent earns enough money to shell out to the people who support his job. Therefore, by finding that the words of the custodial parent, the kidnapper, and caretaker of the children, are credible, then finding that the words of the defendant, non-custodial parent, who never wanted the family to break up in the first place, are not credible, the judge may pass judgement and the prosecutor now has an additional attack points with which to vanquish her foe.