NCFM Representative: Joseph Sahid, Esq.

1. In our lifetime some states have systematically failed to protect the Constitutional rights of distinct segments of the population, including, for example:
   - black school children.
   - individuals charged with violating state criminal laws.
   

2. States succeeded in doing this since they had a virtual monopoly on regulating education and enforcing state criminal laws. They were able to maintain their control because federal courts, invoking one doctrine or another, chose not to get involved.
   

3. Substantial changes occurred only after the federal courts allowed themselves to intervene.
   

4. Today, some states have systematically failed to protect the constitutional rights of men, particularly in domestic relations matters. They have been able to do this because the federal courts, invoking one doctrine or another, choose not to get involved.
   

5. Starting with Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582 (1859), up through Williams v. Lambert, 46 F. 3d 1275 (2nd Cir. 1995), the federal courts, including the Second Circuit, have allowed women more access to the federal courts in domestic relations matters than they have allowed to men.
   

6. As a result, men have not been able to have the merits of their complaints in domestic relations matters considered in federal courts on the same basis as women's complaints have been considered.
   

   Consider for example:
   

   Fay v. South Colonie Central School District, 802 F. 2d 21, 31-32 (2d Cir. 1986) - Court abstains from considering father's constitutional challenge to his right to access certain of his children's school records.
   

   Donovan v. New York, U.S. Dist. Lexis 15573 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) - Description of cases in which fathers were denied access to federal courts to challenge various custody rulings on Constitutional grounds. "Federal courts do not and cannot be lured into resolving such disputes...."
   

   Fariello v. Rodriguez, 148 F.R.D. 670 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) - Father unsuccessfully tried dozens of theories to attempt to see his son after the state courts and others acting with or for the state, allegedly denied his Constitutional rights. "Simply stated, the District Court is the wrong forum for this matter."
   

7. Men's complaints in these matters almost always involve the well-being of children.
   

8. Thus, while women can on occasion access the federal courts to seek money from men in domestic relations cases, men are almost always denied access to federal courts when they seek to insure that their children have access to them.
   

9. Think about it !
   

Consider the following:

- 42 U.S.C. $1985 (2) (second part) - Unlawful to conspire to defeat justice in a state with intent to deny equal protection.

- Lake v. Speziale, 580 F. Supp. 1318 (D. Conn. 1984) - Federal court will require state judges to inform those subject to child support orders of their Constitutional rights under certain circumstances.

- Williams v. Rappeport, 699 F. Supp. 501 (D. Md. 1988) - 42 U.S.C. $ $1983 and 1985 are available to a father challenging a custody matter.

- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) - State judges are not immune from suits for prospective relief, attorney's fees, and costs under civil rights statutes.

NOTE: - Due to keyboard limitations the dollar sign ($) is being used in place of other specialized legal reference symbols.

National Coalition of Free Men
PO Box 129
Manhasset, NY 11030

Back to the NCFM Home Page: Home Page