Good morning,

My name is Daniel Mercer, and I live in Brookfield, New Jersey. I’m writing to describe how the Burlington County Family Court used complicated procedures, ignored disability laws, and showed clear gender bias while handling my cases. I hope my experience helps expose how the system can strip fathers of their parental, residential, and financial rights.

For several years, I have represented myself in two family‑court matters—one involving domestic‑violence allegations and another involving custody and financial disputes. I have dyslexia and cognitive‑processing challenges, so I rely on clear, accessible information to participate in legal proceedings. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court must provide accommodations that allow me to understand and respond to the case. Instead, the court reduced my accommodations to a silent note‑taker, which did nothing to help me read or interpret the documents.

Throughout the litigation, the court repeatedly placed me in trial‑by‑ambush situations. On the morning of hearings, staff handed me thick binders full of dense legal material and expected me to read and respond immediately. When I asked for written transcripts of the judge’s rulings—so I could understand the decisions and prepare my defense—the court refused. They gave me audio files that didn’t play or links that expired within days. The judge even ordered me to stop emailing about my reading difficulties, insisting that they could not provide an attorney as an accommodation.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff—a state government employee—had a private attorney who accused me of faking my disability in open court. The judge did nothing to stop it.

This unequal treatment created a massive power imbalance. The plaintiff’s attorney dragged a completely baseless property claim through family court for more than a year, even though New Jersey abolished common‑law marriage and she had no legal claim to my home. Instead of dismissing the case, the judge pressured me to “settle” and give up my house. I finally forced the issue by standing in court and demanding dismissal because the plaintiff had provided no evidence at all. Only then did the judge end the case.

But the damage continued.

After a 40‑hour domestic‑violence trial, the judge dismissed the restraining order because it had no basis. However, the court never entered a correct written order. Later judges handling my custody case had no idea the restraining order was dismissed. They assumed we had agreed to “civil restraints,” which never happened. Because of this clerical error, the plaintiff convinced the court to name her the Parent of Primary Residence, which increased her child‑support award.

These problems aren’t isolated—they’re systemic.

New Jersey uses gender‑neutral labels like “Plaintiff” and “Defendant,” but the system overwhelmingly favors female litigants. The state funds domestic‑violence programs that primarily serve women and help generate the statistics needed for federal funding under VAWA and Title IV‑D. In the courthouse, the bias was obvious: the plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly entered private judicial chambers, while I—an unrepresented, disabled father—was kept outside.

I’m sharing my story because I believe it shows how family courts use procedural exhaustion, unequal access, and administrative pressure to financially and emotionally drain fathers. I’ve documented everything and hope my experience helps expose how these systems operate.

Thank you for your commitment to fairness and for supporting men and fathers who face situations like mine.