Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.

Abuse of Fathers and Children Rampant in County Family Courts

County District Attorneys Knee-Jerk Punishment Destroys Families

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Conservative Net (

May 9, 1998

America's unjust and just plain stupid knee-jerk response to "child protection" by government workers who really don't love the child, don't know the child, and really don't give a hoot about what is best for the child was highlighted on the front page of the International Section of the London Telegraph Saturday.

The story involved a law professor and his schoolteacher wife, who emigrated to America from China more than five years ago, who slapped their child because she admitted lying to her parents about the loss of a ring given to her for her birthday. As they looked for the ring in the park in Cook County, Illinois where the girl lost it, a policeman asked why the tearful girl had a red mark on her face and the parents told him what happened. He promptly arrested the parents for striking their daughter, took their daughter to strangers in a child care unit and put the parents in jail for "domestic abuse."

The following day the girl was returned to her parents, after social workers decided she was not at any risk. They found the smacking to be slight and the girl eager to return home.

That didn't end the government interference into a strictly family decision which was probably strange and foreign to the policeman - punishment for breaking one of the Ten Commandments - the one about lying.

No, indeed. Under a 1996 amendment to the US immigration laws, passed by a conservative congress to get rid of crime-prone aliens, Mr. Hou-Lin and his wife are deportable upon conviction of a domestic abuse crime. Of course, if they are deported, their daughter will also have to leave America, but this is immaterial to the Cook County prosecutor who is bent on destroying this family and then deporting them.

What recourse do parents have when it is the State which abuses their children? Little to none. County governments can, and do, destroy families with impunity and when we journalists try to track down what has happened, we run into a stonewall. No one will discuss a specific case, no matter how flagrant and open the abuse of the family has become, or how destructive to the children.

Two years ago, on May 2, 1996, Annette Watson, from El Dorado County, California, the divorced mother of seven young children was killed in an automobile accident. It had been an angry divorce, in which the young mother, bitter towards her husband for real or perceived misbehavior, had failed to tell him that she was expecting a baby - which turned out to be twins. With the active support of her father, who had hated the husband because of his religion from the moment they married, she demanded that he leave the home, got a divorce and took her maiden name back. She was living in one of her father's numerous rental houses when she was killed.

The former husband, David Wixom, immediately tried to go to his children and to provide a home for them. The grandfather, a wealthy man with property in two states, would not let the children go and went into court to get custody of the children with using two rather amazing arguments: (1) The minor children presently have no known estate other than potential eligibility for AFDC or social security benefits and (2) Mr. Wixom would be nothing more than a parasite if he were granted custody of these children.

Any person with average intelligence would be hard put to figure out how a man who wanted to do the responsible thing and take care of his seven children, who supposedly had "no known estate" could be in such a great financial situation that their father would somehow become a "parasite" on THEM if he took custody of them.

But, then, something else had occurred. The children's maternal grandfather, had called newspapers and television stations in three different areas and two states, beginning the day of the accident to say that the father had "abandoned" the seven children and that the Watson family "is in the process of setting up a trust fund for "Watson's children" at a local bank. People were urged to contribute to the fund and, according to the oldest of the children, Justin Wixom, who is now in the Marine Corps, his grandfather told him more than a quarter of a million dollars was raised supposedly for the children. Only, when Justin went in to inquire at the bank for funds from the fund for his college tuition, he was informed it was not for him. It belonged totally to his grandfather. In the meanwhile, because Justin had taken his father's side in the custody battle, the grandfather said he would get nothing. The funds were all in an account belonging to the grandfather.

On top of that money, there was also $100,000 or $200,000 in automobile insurance money due the children. So, one might assume that it is this money that would be used to support these children and help them get on their feet so they would not have to be on welfare, right?

Wrong. The children, two years after the fact, are still living with the wealthy grandfather, who has control, apparently of all the funds, plus the social security money AND county welfare money that comes in to support the minor children.

David Wixom, his parents, brother and sisters pitched in to pay lawyer fees to fight for custody. The parents, in fact, sold their home and one sister contributed her life's savings to pay legal fees which, in a few months, amounted to over $120,000. Then the family ran out of money, just as the case was about to go to trial.

Lawyers in cases like this don't continue when the money runs out. David Wixom went into court alone in the fall of 1997 to tell the family court judge that he and his family were out of money, he was destitute, and could no longer fight the case. The children remained with the grandfather, an unmarried man with a live-in companion, and David Wixom took two jobs to try to pay - not his own family back - but to pay the County of El Dorado for the welfare given to support his children in the home of their wealthy grandparent!

Over the past five years since the divorce, Wixom, who had been in construction until the construction jobs basically disappeared in the area due to no-growth politics, has given the county up to 65% of his income. He has been unemployed several times and finally was able, in the booming economy of the last year, was able to find two jobs that were more than minimum wage jobs.

A sad story, but at least it's over, huh? Nope. Because he was judged "behind" on payment of back child support, which remained the same over five years in spite of his inability to find work - he now owes $40,000, the County District Attorney says, and they are going to now take his driver's license away from him, so that he will now lose both of this jobs, which require him to drive.

If he doesn't pay the $40,000, he was told, immediately, he will be put in jail. If he doesn't work, he was told, he will be put in jail. And, if he does go to jail, it won't wipe out the $40,000.

Had he been given custody of his children they would not be on welfare. While recent changes in California welfare law require live-in partners of the mother to contribute to expenses of the household, there must be some kind of loophole in the law which has enabled this grandfather to keep his grandchildren on the public dole while enjoying the benefits of the money which should have been in the children's estate - funds sent to the never created trust fund for the Wixom children and the insurance money.

David Wixom's employer was contacted by the County about so-called "back support payments" and informed that he would lose his license, and therefore, his job. Actually, the child support payment was set based on an income that his former wife appears to have picked out of the air, and which is totally different from that he paid income tax on. And, when unemployed, it just accrued, instead of being challenged by his expensive lawyers.

I contacted the El Dorado County District Attorney's office to see if they were aware that their actions were causing their victim to lose both jobs and was rather haughtily informed that could not happen because it was against the law for an employer to fire an employee over wage attachments.

That was such an incredibly stupid answer that I was stunned. I pointed out that if he couldn't drive a car, he couldn't DO his job. Even more haughtily I was informed, as if I were a child, that he would "just have to take a bus. "

Right. His job is as a sales representative it REQUIRES him to drive. There ARE no buses in California to most of the places a sales representative needs to go.

What David Wixom is dealing with is a corrupt, anti-family system in which NOBODY is responsible - at least to hear them tell it.

And what is the result going to be in this case? Well, Dave Wixom went into the District Attorney's office yesterday, handed them his employer's letter, informed them that not only would he lost that job, but his other job, since he couldn't drive, and they may as well put him in jail, because there would be no way for him to get another job.

Their response? "Well, OK, Mr. Wixom." He went home to wait for notice of when to report to jail.

So Hillary Clinton thinks it takes the Village to raise the child? I'd like to introduce her to a family of seven children whose family has been destroyed totally by the Village.

To comment:

Back to DA*DI's Home

Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry