From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:16:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.131413.4225@mwhhlaw.uucp>, mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth) writes:
> There has been a suggestion that a class action be brought to challenge the  
> administration of Indiana's child custody laws under the theory that such laws  
> have been administered in such a manner as to discriminate on the basis of sex;  
> to wit, males are denied custody solely because of their gender.  Several  
> 
.....
> 
> Who will be the plaintiffs? - It would probably be best to limit the class of  
> plaintiffs to males who have been denied custody and who have actively sought  
> custody in contested proceedings where the evidence presented was at least as  
> favorable to the male as to the female.  Where can a list of such males be  
> obtained?  In a class action, notice to all members of the class will be  
> required. How will that notice be given?  Alternatively, would it be better to  
> pick a particular case and file a motion to correct errors to raise the  
> constitutional issue?  What if the motion is granted?
    At least that individual gets something!
> 
> Who will be the defendants? - This would be, in part, dependent upon the theory  
> or theories of recovery.  However, it could be the 92 plus Indiana courts with  
> domestic law jurisdiction.  I would be concerned about concepts of judicial  
> immunity.  Alternatively, how about the Indiana Supreme Court in its role as  
> supervisors of the lower courts?  How would service of process be handled?  Is  
> this an attack upon the constitutionality of a statute so as to invoke the  
> special service requirements of such actions?
> 
> What would be the theory?  - Is this a 14th amendment case or a 1983 case or  
> what?  I personally have difficulty in placing this matter in the proper  
> context.  I do note, in passing, that the U.S. Supreme Court has made facially  
> neutral-disparate impact cases difficult for plaintiffs.  Mere statistical  
> impact is suspect evidence, at best.  Moreover, the recent Abortion Clinic   
> holding seems to me to raise a high proof threshold for invidious sexual  
> discrimination cases.
> 
> 
> What evidence will need to be presented?  One study will not be sufficient.   
> What other evidence would need to be produced to be successful in a trial?
> 
> Bottom line - If those discussing the possibility of a such an action are  
> serious, then the first step would be to generate a large war chest.  I suspect  
> that the legal budget would be in the mid-six figures.  Next, find a good  
> lawyer who is willing to sue either about every judge in Indiana or his Supreme  
> Court and who is will to devote a large block of time to the case.

Thanks for the comments.  I agree that on simply the evidence of
numbers of persons awarded sole custody, such a case is impossible.
There is other evidence more indicative of outright sexism..see other post.

For every judge who has never order a women to pay child support,
how about a Writ of Mandamus demanding that the judge give a written
explaination for every such case in future?
For every judge who has ordered no child support from a women when
the man has custody, without given a written explanation articulating
the reasons for deviation, we are probably talking about 60 judges.
Might that not get someone`s attention?

For every judge who has not filed a worksheet.  (Supposedly guideline
required action.)  How about a Writ of Mandamus for that?

The point is....there are several thousand men out there who are as
mad as hell, are not going to take it anymore.  And if they can`t
get justice maybe they can absolutely bog the system down until
the system cries uncle....(I can dream!)

David Garrod
Thought for the day:
"Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror,
victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory
there is no survival."  Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc