Search this site:
Stay Informed:  Please enter your e-mail address below:

Become Active

Contact Us



We could use your help. If you are interested in making a corporate donation for 2008, please e-mail Michael Robinson. As always, thank you for your generous support!

In the News

Thursday, September 4, 2008

CAFC ALERT: Fox Network will not air “Bad Dads” TV show

As many of you know, this last April, The California Alliance for Families and Children had been in direct contact with Fox Network executives regarding their reported plans to air a reality TV show entitled "Bad Dads," produced by 3Ball Productions. Our actions consisted of a quiet effort to educate high level Fox Network officials. See the PDF letter we sent to Fox, or read more on our home page.

We have continued to monitor this with Fox, and CAFC is proud to let you know that we have just been informed -- off the record -- by a senior network official that Fox has decided not to buy the pilot program. There may not be any official announcement by Fox of the decision; the program simply will not be aired. We were told part of the reason behind this decision was the information CAFC provided as well as the outrage the network received with calls and faxes from around the country.

CAFC was happy to join with Glenn Sacks, and Ned Holstein from Massachusetts, in this effort to impact Fox. We believe that once again, CAFC's general strategy of combining public outrage with quiet education and working directly with decision makers has proven its effectiveness.
The lesson learned again is that by working together, and picking the right issues at the right time, reformers can successfully impact decision makers -- whether political or media -- to create a level playing field. Much work is left to do, but each small victory is one step forward.

Thanks to all of you who took the time to contact the Fox Network. Without you these campaigns would not be effective.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Robinson's e-mail, sent to governor's office and other elected officials

(Below is an e-mail sent by CAFC to the office of Ohio's Governor, Ted Strickland, as well as other elected officials, regarding the campaign to release Brian Gegner from jail for his daughter's inability to pass a test for her GED diploma:)

Regarding the following story:
"Man jailed after father fails to get GED to appear in court"
Friday, May 16, 2008
Hamilton Journal News

From the above story (italics added):
Rob Clevenger, Butler County court administrator, said:
In 2007, 196 parents were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor for not compelling their children to attend school. He said other parents who did not comply have gone to jail, although he could not specify how many."

Before I continue, I have also seen the blistering report regarding the Butler County Juvenile Court, written by former County Commissioner Michael Fox: "A Culture of Secrecy, Fear and Judicial Abuse"

Remember, Brittany's parents kept taking her to school; she would take off after being dropped off. Were these parents supposed to quit their jobs, and handcuff themselves to Brittany? Did Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus expect the parents to beat the crap out of her to get her to comply, so then the court would convict them for child abuse?

Mr. Rob Clevenger sounds like he is the political spin doctor for the out-of-control Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus, and his spin is not working well here because there is no way they can justify parents being jailed because the parents don't have the needed skill to control an out-of-control, strong-willed teen. According to the following and other sources (Fairfield County), the Ohio Attorney General strongly urged counties to start using the The Parent Project® after an impact study of the program's success in helping parents learn how to deal with strong-willed teens.

When Rob Clevenger received the memo from the attorney general's office recommending The Parent Project®, did he just throw it in the trash? Was this because the Niehaus court would rather jail parents, rather than solve the problems parents experience with strong-willed, out-of-control kids? He can make all of the excuses he wants, but there is no way they can justify the Orwellian tactics being employed by this court and by Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus.

The Parent Project® (2004-2005)
Funding Agency: Office of the Ohio Attorney General

"Project Description: With support from the Office of the Ohio Attorney General, ISPV staff conducted an evaluation of Parent Project, a training curriculum for the parents of adolescents who engage in various forms of destructive behavior. Data were collected from both parents and their children, as well as from juvenile courts in Cuyahoga, Mahoning and Stark Counties: http://dept.kent.edu/ispv/pastProj.html

"Fairfield County has been using the program for 2 years with great success after they received information from the attorney general's office urging them to use it:

Toni Ashton, Coalition Director

I guess Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus would rather jail parents and cause them to lose their jobs instead of getting productive results like these:

The following statistics illustrate what happened in Minidoka County, Idaho, from August 1997 (when full implementation of The Parent Project® began) through December 1999:

  • The number of petitions filed for juvenile offenses fell 33%.

  • The number of minors on probation for any cause fell by more than 30%.

  • The number of drug-related probation violations was down by 20%.

  • The number of days spent by youth in detention fell by 24%.

  • School dropouts and expulsions dropped by 95%.

So it costs the county taxpayers approximately $30K a year to house an inmate. In the instant case of a 6-month sentence for Brian Gegner, would mean it could cost the taxpayers $15k. His sentence -- or that of the other parents whom Rob Clevenger says they have jailed -- didn't change the teenagers' destructive behavior. The Parent Project® costs parents at most $240, and in some places as low as $150. Mind you this is paid by the parents, not the tax payers. According to my math, Butler County could have helped 63 parents change their kids' destructive behavior, including improving their academic achievement levels for the $15,000 that it will cost taxpayers to jail Brian Gegner. The taxpayers of Butler county have been robbed by the actions of Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus, and he should be recalled or removed from the bench.

Michael Robinson

Labels: , , ,

Monday, May 12, 2008

Judge Orders Man to Jail After Adult Daughter Fails to Get a GED; Sparks Call for National Protest by Both Men and Women

The California Alliance for Families and Children (“CAFC”) today called for a national protest by both men and woman over an Ohio judge’s order to jail a father for 180 days, because his daughter did not get her General Equivalency Diploma (GED).

Michael Robinson, Executive Director of CAFC, said, “This is one of the most outrageous court rulings we have seen in a long time – and that’s saying something. Under the judge's logic, more than a million men and woman alike -- who are parents of high school dropouts -- should all be put in jail. This judge is out of control, and should be immediately removed from this case.”

Butler County Juvenile Court Judge David Niehaus ordered Brian Gegner to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor by not following a court order, an order which required Gegner to be sure that his daughter got her GED. While the father had technical custody, the daughter actually lived with her mother while she was truant from school.

ABC station WPCO reported that the daughter, Brittany Gegner -- who is now 18 -- says the order is “ridiculously wrong,” adding that if anyone should go to jail, she should and not her dad. Brittany was quoted: "I'm about to be 19 and my Dad's being punished for something I did when I was 16," she said. "I would way rather me go to jail than my Dad."

Her mother also volunteered to go to jail. "They probably should have punished me if they were going to punish anybody," said Brittany's mother, Shana Roach. "Because she did live with me at the time, but because he had the custody, that's why he's being punished." "But I don't understand the punishment all together, because she's going to school, she's been going for four months," said Roach. "The only thing that's holding her back is she can't pass her math test."

A copy of the full story can be found at: http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=28d2acca-9947-44cc-8831-9859f1f6137e

Contact: Michael Robinson

This press release is also available in PDF format:



Monday, October 2, 2006

Domestic Violence Bill Signed by Governor (AB 2051, Cohn)

For Immediate Release

Sacramento: CAFC Executive Director and Legislative Advocate Michael Robinson spoke with the Governors office regarding the signing of AB 2051 Cohn; Domestic Violence.

The Governor's staff informed CAFC that the Governor signed AB 2051 because he believed it moved domestic violence (DV) policy in a direction of becoming more inclusive. Despite his signature high level staff in the Governor's office confirmed he firmly believes that we should strive to address the needs of all victims of domestic violence regardless of gender or sexual orientation. More significantly his office indicated that they are interested in working with the Legislature, CAFC and other stakeholder groups to develop a policy that will better serve the entire population during the next legislative session.

While some may feel that the outcome of AB 2051 was a defeat, we think not. As a result of the legislative fight CAFC waged on AB 2051, legislators and the Governor's staff told CAFC for the first time they are better informed about the realities of domestic violence.

As a result we are encouraged that there is now wide and growing support for introducing legislation in the next session to address the needs of all victims -- including straight males and their children. Equally important, many if not all of the DV experts that CAFC has worked with over the last year on AB 2051 will continue to stand with us, as we move forward in the next session to bring about DV reforms that produce sound social policy that works for all victims and their children.

Michael Robinson



Tuesday, April 18, 2006

California AB 2051 Perpetuates Domestic Violence Gender Bias


April 18, 2006


Sacramento CA - Today the California Assembly Judiciary Committee passed out assembly bill AB 2051 authored by Assembly Member Rebecca Cohn, of the 24th assembly district. The bill is a domestic violence bill that would help to provide educational material relating to domestic violence within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) communities. The bill also requires the appointment of a representative to the Domestic Violence Advisory Counsel, which advises on policy and training to the legislature and other state government agencies.

Last October 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed against the state, state agencies and several shelters regarding discrimination in the state’s policy under Health and Safety Code 124250, which defined domestic violence victims as only women. The Cohn bill, AB 2051 was not introduced until February 16. 2006.

Southern California attorney Marc Anglucci filed the lawsuit, Maegan Black v. California, on behalf of Megan Black, the now adult child of an abused father and several other male victims of domestic violence who were denied services as victims. Megan also suffered.

Angelucci had made numerous contacts to Cohn’s office after it was learned that she would be introducing a bill to amend H&S code 124250 and other code sections. According to Angelucci, Cohn’s office advised him that she was considering his request to include all victims, including straight males.

Recent Center for Disease Control data shows that males represent at least 36 percent of all domestic violence victims. Many others studies and data sources show that domestic violence by men and women is about equal.

The arguments against current state policies and AB 2051 is not just about the males that are being discriminated against their children are also being discriminated against because they do not get the same services, e.g. counseling, shelter and so on, that the children of abused women get. The data is now undisputable and the experts in the field are feed up with the politics that surround this issue. Information in this regard had been provided to the committee members.

In spite of all the position letters urging Cohn to amend the bill to assure that all victims are recognized, she failed to respond and address the inequities. All committee members had been provided with undisputable evidence of the need to included straight males. During the hearing not a single member challenged the data or information offered to support the need to included straight males let alone ask any questions. The other problem with the bill is that it could cause the state the risk of losing 10’s of millions in federal STOP grant money.

Many international respected domestic violence experts wrote positions letters opposing the bill unless it was amended to include all victims, including straight men. The federal law, the Violence Against Womens Act (VAWA), was amended last year and made substantial changes in Section 3, Universal Definitions and Grant Requirements, including a requirement that the programs be gender neutral. Other changes also included section 4002 (8) Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title. The General Accounting Office (GAO) section 512 also made changes to make sure that the data was being tracked more accurately and better grant funding accountability. More information can be found at www.vawa4all.org, Safe Homes for Children and Families, which is allied with California Alliance for Families and Children (CAFC)

One of the experts in the field to testify at the hearing today was John Hamel, who is also the author of Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence (Springer, 2005). Hamel has gained international respect for his work, www.favtea.com. Hamel has also been very supportive of the needs of the LGBT community regarding domestic violence. Hamel is quoted after the hearing:

“As currently written, AB 2051, the bill authored by Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn and approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, specifies that funds should be made available to help heterosexual female, gay, lesbian and transgender victims of domestic violence. The bill deliberately ignores heterosexual males, even though they account for half of all domestic violence victims and incur approximately one third of domestic violence related injuries. If gay, lesbian and transgender individuals, who represent a relatively small proportion of all domestic violence victims, are now to be provided the same range of services currently available to heterosexual women, why deny these services to heterosexual males?”

“There is an overwhelming, irrefutable body of research indicating that children are adversely affected by witnessing inter-parental violence regardless of the perpetrator’s gender. Boys and girls who have seen their mother physically assault their father are just as likely as those who witnessed their father assault their mother to perpetrate dating violence as adolescents and assault their intimate partners in adulthood. The research evidence also finds that parents who assault one another are also likely to also assault their children, and this correlation holds equally for mothers and fathers. By ignoring the problem of female-on-male violence, Cohn’s bill is not only blatantly gender biased and discriminatory; but more importantly, it actually inhibits our common efforts to effectively combat domestic violence in our communities. Unless amended to specifically include all victims of domestic violence – male, female, gay or straight – this fraudulent piece of legislation should not be allowed to become law.”

Michael Robinson (916) 223-6143


Tuesday, September 6, 2005

Governor Signs Bipartisan Bill to Protect Deployed Military Parents

For Immediate Release
Contact: Donald Wilson
September 6, 2005
Phone: (916) 651-1503

Governor Signs Bipartisan Bill to Protect Deployed Military Parents

Military deployment no longer a weapon against soldiers in California courts

Sacramento - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law Senate Bill 1082, a measure which will help protect parents serving in the military reserves. The bill closes a loophole in federal family law that has made national guardsmen and other reserve parents vulnerable to legal problems such as spousal kidnapping of their children.

Jointly authored by the bipartisan team of Senators Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside) and Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), SB 1082 establishes a procedure for managing child support proceedings prior to the actual deployment of reserve component personnel. The measure requires that the court either accommodate a soldier with deployment orders – or mark the case to denote that the reservist made an effort prior to deployment to update support orders and therefore should not be unduly penalized for noncompliance caused by the deployment.

“Because federal law prohibits the retroactive modification of child support orders for reasons relating to military deployment, activated National Guard troops have actually returned home as criminals,” stated Senator Bill Morrow. “It is important to me to help protect those who are protecting us and bring them some peace of mind.”

Due to their inability to finance expensive child support payments on suddenly reduced incomes, many military men and women would not only be criminalized when they returned, but also find their children had been taken away by court order. SB 1082’s passage will ensure that no reservist or national guardsman will have to endure this injustice again in California.

“SB 1082 is a victory for military parents across the state. This legislation ensures that servicemen and women will be able to concentrate on the duty of serving their country while ensuring that they are able to meet their parental responsibilities at home,” commented Senator Ducheny.

A former Marine Corps officer, Morrow represents a north San Diego County district that includes Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. Ducheny’s district includes portions of the U.S. Navy’s multiple installations in the city of San Diego.
Despite attempts in several other states, SB 1082 is the first state-level bill in the nation making such provisions to be signed into law.

Fact sheet on SB 1082 (Morrow/Ducheny-2005)
Senate Bill 1082 helps military members avoid certain problems they face in state family law courts. For example, the bill addresses child support modifications that affect activated Reservists and National Guard members as many leave higher paying civilian jobs when mobilized to their military position. SB 1082 includes an urgency clause, allowing it to take effect immediately upon enactment. The bill provides:

· That complications caused by a servicemember’s relocation, activation and deployment shall not, by themselves, be sufficient to justify modifying existing custody or visitation orders.
· A more simplified process to modify support orders using a new form that the California Judicial Counsel will develop specifically for activated Reservists and Guard members affected.
· That courts give priority to mobilized military members. If not possible, the new law guarantees a court stay (in accordance with Title 50, U.S. Code), pending the servicemember’s return from active duty and deployment.
· That a member has 90 days to address their family law matters once they return home from active service.
· Relief from interest and penalties on any arrears of child support if those interest and penalties result from activation and deployment. In cases where the support payments are to repay Cal Works, arrears directly caused by activation and deployment may be forgiven.
· That the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) give priority to child support cases that are currently handled by the department. SB 1082 includes provisions that allow DCSS and the courts to consider affected parties whose lives may have been impacted before the act was signed into law.

Following are descriptions of two real-life examples provided by servicemembers:

I too became a victim of the system. My support shot up three times the former amount, to include all my combat pay and BAH etc. When I returned from Iraq, I was found in arrears and guilty of contempt. When I left, all visitations was suspended, my current wife was unable to see my son. We are still fighting this issue.
Command Sergeant Major Timothy XXXXX
U.S.Army Reserve

My husband and I are currently on active duty at Fort Riley, KS. His ex-wife filed for child support in Missouri years ago. He must pay support until the children are 21 years old. He has two daughters with this woman. One daughter left home Feb 04, was married by June 04 and now is pregnant. She turned 21 in Feb 05. We asked for a modification last year. Child Support Enforcement told us that we cannot receive a modification because we are in Kansas and the custodial parent is in California. (My husband was stationed in Missouri at the time the case was conducted.) They knew then that he was a soldier and not a resident of the state. My husband retires next year. Our monies will be limited. The State continues taking the whole amount of the support even though one child left home over a year ago. We may have to take the custodial parent to court for the overpayment. But why? We notified the state and the state had the burden to modify due to one of the children turning 21. My husband's check is garnished, so he can't just stop the payment. Please Help!!!!!
Thank You in Advance,
Mrs. Cynthia XXXX


Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation Supporting Soldiers & Veterans

Press Release



Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation Supporting Soldiers & Veterans
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed legislation that supports and strengthens California's commitment to our military men, women, families and veterans.

"In light of the sacrifices that members of our military make on a daily basis, it is incumbent upon us to offer them and their families every means of support possible," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "These bills make important improvements in the way our State and society looks to the needs of soldiers and veterans."

Governor Schwarzenegger signed the following six bills:

SB 1082 by Senator Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside) - Child support: military reservists.
This bill allows federally activated Armed Forces reservists and National Guard members to seek expedited child support order modifications and requires the court to schedule a hearing prior to that members out-of-state deployment. It will help protect reservists and National Guard members from going into arrears on child-support payments and allow them to participate in custody decisions before being deployed out-of-state.

AB 208 by Assemblymember Mike Gordon (D-El Segundo) - School districts: priority for attendance: children of military personnel. This bill permits school districts to give priority to the children of military personnel whenever they are stationed in a new district and seeking an inter-district transfer, regardless of the time of year.

AB 357 by Assemblymember Shirley Horton (R-Bonita) - Taxpayer contributions: Veterans' Quality of Life Fund. This bill will establish a Veteran's Quality of Life Fund so that taxpayers may designate a contribution to veteran's homes on their personal income tax return.

AB 690 by Assemblymember Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) - National Guard: weapons of mass destruction civil support team. This bill will establish a retention bonus program for the California National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. These teams are specially trained and equipped to respond to real or suspected weapons of mass destruction incidents.

AB 720 by Assemblymember Mike Villines (R-Clovis) - California State University: observance of Veterans Day. This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to observe Veterans Day on November 11th annually so that students, faculty and staff at all CSU campuses may be able to participate in community events recognizing our soldiers.

AB 1523 by Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) - State employment: military leave of absence. This bill extends the period for a military leave of absence for state employees from four to five years.


Thursday, February 24, 2005

Bill to allow military reservists to modify a child support order

February 24, 2005


Sacramento - Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Senator Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside) introduced SB 1082 which aims to protect the parental rights of deployed military personnel. This bill would enable military reservists to modify or stay a child support order prior to being deployed for active military service.

“California National Guardsman and Reservists should return home from a tour of duty in Iraq expecting a hero's welcome” said Ducheny. “Some Reservists arrive finding themselves labeled ‘deadbeat dads’ due to outdated child support laws in California,” she added.

Civilians often leave high-paying jobs to serve their country as Reservists and National Guardsmen overseas; they are not given the time to modify their child support orders before they leave. While making only a fraction of their civilian-job salaries as they serve, many are unable to meet the support obligation. In many cases, military members are only given 72 hours to report for duty after they learn they have been called up to serve in the war.

SB 1082 aims to give some relief to these soldiers. This bill would allow military personnel with deployment orders to get a date with the court before deployment or grant a stay of proceedings so military obligations cannot be used to exploit the family situations of activated military personnel switching from civilian to military life.

“Military reservists should have the same opportunity as civilians to modify their child support orders when there is a reduction in wages” said Senator Ducheny.

Senator Morrow said, “Most of them have dramatic declines in income when they are mobilized – for national security reasons – over lengthy periods of time. This bill protects the interests of the children and is fair to these service personnel.”

The bill has received tremendous bipartisan support and is co-sponsored by at least 25 members in the legislature. Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) is a principal co-author to the bill.

Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny represents parts of San Diego and Riverside Counties and all of Imperial County. Senator Bill Morrow represents parts of Northern San Diego County including Camp Pendleton and parts of South Orange County.

SK Lindsey
Office of Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny
State Capitol, Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: (916) 445-6767
Fax: (916) 327-3522
Contact: Edgar Zazueta


Monday, November 22, 2004

Paternity Fraud Victims Finally Rescued


Paternity Fraud Victims Finally Rescued
Press Release from California Alliance for Families & Children

Sacramento, CA (CAFC) California Alliance for Families & Children, November 22, 2004 - California families and tax payers have scored two major victories in the battle against paternity fraud -- a crime committed when a man is fraudulently identified as the father of a child, and is then forced to give up a percentage of his income for child support. The Supreme Court of California on November 10, 2004 refused to depublish the landmark decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals, Los Angeles County vs. Navarro, holding that men wrongfully identified as the fathers of children cannot be forced to pay child support. Child Support Enforcement aggressively fought to have the ruling depublished.

Linda Ferrer, attorney for Manuel Navarro the defendant in the case, and Michael Robinson of CAFC (www.cafcusa.org) worked diligently to build support to oppose depublishing. The Supreme Court of California had previously depublished similar lower court rulings. Some of the opposition letters that Robinson achieved support from included Legislative members and the County of Los Angeles Public Defender's office. The Public Defender's office has been representing Defendants in these cases at tax payer expense.

Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law AB 252, a bill that is now strengthened by the Navarro decision. Some mothers falsely identify men as the fathers of their children in order to collect high child support benefits. In cases where the actual father has a low income, some mothers may decide to falsely identify other, wealthier men they sleep with as the father. Often the new "dad" doesn't find out that he has been duped -- and is now liable for child support -- until long after the statute of limitations for contesting paternity has expired.

Paternity fraud has cost men and tax payers millions in illegitimate child support sanctions across the country, has ripped apart families and destroyed lives. AB 252 and Navarro now promises to provide relief to these men, some whose current family and children have been seriously hurt financially as a result of mothers who commit this fraud.

Both the bill and the Navarro court decision are major victories for fathers, families and tax payers in California.

In the Navarro case, Los Angeles County, which knew it had wrongfully identified Manuel Navarro was not the father of a 2 boys because of DNA testing, still attempted to collect child support payments from him. Because of an apparent administrative error, he had earlier been misidentified as the father. A Los Angeles County magistrate had ordered that Navarro still needed to pay support, despite the DNA evidence proving he was not the father.

But the Second District Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, and in a blistering decision, rebuked child support officials from pursuing a claim against someone that was known not to be the biological father.

"It is this state's policy that when a mistake occurs in a child support action, the County must correct it, not exploit it," the ruling states. "The County, a political embodiment of its citizens and inhabitants, must always act in the public interest and for the general good. It should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so."


Michael Robinson



Sunday, November 14, 2004

Wave of celebrity palimony suits indicative of greed


Wave of celebrity palimony suits indicative of greed
Press Release from California Alliance for Families & Children (CAFC)

Sacramento, CA (CAFC) November 14, 2004 - CAFC is appalled by how easily men can be robbed of their possessions by women with whom they share no marital agreement, often based solely on alleged oral agreements that would not be enforceable in other areas of law.

Comedian Bill Maher was hit with a palimony suit on November 10, 2004. An ex-girlfriend is demanding a $9 million payment for alleged verbal and physical abuse. The plaintiff, Nancy Johnson, is a former centerfold model. Johnson, who dated Maher for just 17 months, claims that the comedian reneged on a promise to buy her a Beverly Hills home, and to marry her and have children.

Meanwhile, an ex-girlfriend of Burt Reynolds is suing the Hollywood actor, alleging that he, too, agreed to maintain what is presumably an exorbitant lifestyle of the woman, and to give her half his estate. When Reynolds balked, Pamela Seals threatened to levy false abuse allegations, which Reinhold's attorneys deem "blackmail."

Michael Robinson, spokesperson of the California advocacy group CAFC, commented that the women's lawsuits are another clear indication that the legal system is being used by "gold diggers" to extort money from vulnerable men. These men, along with the California tax payers, are suffering. Thousands are being spent by the California tax payers to pay for the court time that palimony cases take up."

"It's absurd that, even without marrying these men, these women may walk away with millions. Absurd, but not surprising, given the way the California legal system is stacked against men. In California palimony can be set based on oral agreements. California's courts can make a finding of fact that an oral agreement existed - based solely on finding the female more "believable" - even if no such oral agreement had ever been made. ("Oral promise to support for rest of life is enforceable" Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054.)

The website http://www.palimony.com/ provides caselaw before and after the Marvin decision, which should be reviewed by all men who are sharing a residence with an unmarried woman.


Michael Robinson