Domestic Violence on the Increase

The proponents of unilateral, no-fault divorce brag domestic violence have decreased 30% in the past 25 years!
“Over the past 25 years, the National Institute of Justice has worked to educate the public and policymakers about the widespread problem of domestic violence in the US. Because of the increased exposure, there has been more public awareness and policies and laws have been instituted, resulting in a decrease of 30% in domestic abuse.”
As well as serious intimate partner violence and homicides.
“In a BJS count of serious intimate partner violence against women, the numbers dropped 72 percent between 1994 and 2011. And from 1993 to 2007, the annual number of female victims of homicides by intimate partners declined from 2,200 to 1,640; male victims from 1,100 to 700.”
However, they are looking at domestic violence as “physical”
“According to the DOJ, physical, sexual, emotional, economic and psychological abuse are all forms of domestic violence.”
…and not considering the full gambit!
“It’s important to keep in mind the Bureau report doesn’t account for types of domestic violence beyond physical, such as mental, emotional, financial, spiritual and reproductive abuse. That could explain why the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) says there is no noticeable decrease in the number of survivors stepping forward. In fact, quite the opposite—the NNEDV reports that 88 percent of their programs are experiencing an increase in the number of people asking for help.”
The fact is, the Domestic Hotline says they are at their busiest time ever!
“National Domestic Violence Hotline had its busiest year ever, with more than half a million calls in 2018. The 573,670 calls and other communications were a 36 percent increase from 2017, according to the hotline, which has provided 24-hour, year-round support since 1996 for individuals affected by relationship abuse.”
Advocates against Domestic Violence also say complaints are increasing.
“National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) reports that 88 percent of their programs are experiencing an increase in the number of people asking for help.”
The rapid increase in restraining orders against men is probably why the extreme cases of domestic abuse has decreased. However, the restraining orders against innocent men have created an increase of father’s being alienated from their children.
“In 2004, 72,073 restraining orders were issued citywide. In 2008 that number rose to 104,903, a 46 percent increase.”
Family Court has swayed away from reporting these allegation of domestic violence to the criminal courts to litigate.
“Divorces frequently involve allegations of domestic violence. But, historically, the judicial system would handle the issues separately—with one judge presiding over the divorce, another hearing the criminal domestic violence case. This was tough on the victims, who had to deal with multiple sets of legal proceedings, each with a different process (and, sometimes, each in a different courthouse). It also meant that family court judges, hearing the divorce cases, might not have full information about the domestic violence allegations. Today many jurisdictions, though by no means all of them, use a “one family, one judge” approach—consolidating the hearings into one place.”
The sad thing is they say the increase of reports is only due to awareness and prevention programs. Although, this may be partly-true it is not the entire picture. Is it possible that the opposite is true and broken homes are creating broken lives?
“Three Violence Against Women Acts (VAWA) (1994, 2000, 2005). 51% increase in reporting of domestic violence and 18% increase in National Domestic Violence Hotline calls each year, evidence that as victims become aware of remedies, they break the code of silence.”
Broken homes do not decrease family violence, they create broken lives, broken families, and broken hearts and minds. All in all, broken people. Only through intact homes, families can we see a true decrease of family violence and teen-suicides.
“The CDC reports that from 1999 to 2017, the suicide rate among boys ages 10 to 14 grew from 1.9 suicides per 100,000 people to 3.3. Among girls, suicides roughly tripled from 0.5 per 100,000 to 1.7. Researchers recently reported in the journal Pediatrics that while 50 percent of parents are unaware that their 11- to 17-year-olds are having suicidal thoughts, younger teens are more likely than older teens to deny their pain.”
Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, what does the bible say about divorce | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Parental Rights (or) The Best Interest of the Child standards? Who wins?

Please test and give me your feedback:
This might be the most important post a parent ever reads. Let me explain how your human, parental rights are NOT protected by the 14th Amendment. There is a false assumption that it is. The Declaration of Independence was created to explain to Great Britain “why” we believe we have an inherent right, under God to declare our independence from their authority. This is important, because the authors of the Declaration of Independence agreed that all humans possess these natural, God given rights. That means, you and I.
The only way to know what rights are natural, God given rights is by God’s laws known in the bible. However, they also agree that these natural rights are “Self Evident”. This is very important because you are dealing with human rights that are understood universally without enumeration. Basically, what you are born with cannot be taken away or transferred.
The Constitution was written to protect our “alienable” rights. These are rights that can be transferred from one person to another, or a Government. Meaning, it can be taken away from you. The Constitution was written to numerate many of our fundamental rights that may not be unalienable (nontransferable). The Federal Government gave States their own jurisdictional authority and promised to not violate these to create tyranny such as Great Britain. They wanted to give the right to the people, called its citizens.
The Declaration of Independence is considered a “social compact” or better yet, called a unilateral contract to its citizens sworn and affirmed by the signatures of its leaders. Many of the same leaders who authored the Declaration of Independence. So, look at it this way. They Declaration was written to protect your “unalienable” rights, and the Constitution was drafted to protect all other rights that were not considered unalienable. But what about the 14th Amendment and our “life and liberty”?
By the time the 14th Amendment was being drafted the Supreme Court has already dealt with issues of “life” and “liberty” that was deemed not to be unalienable. Such as going to jail for committing a crime or the death penalty “life for a life”. Both of these are affirmed in scripture, showing that God’s natural laws for life and liberty were partially unalienable. At least, situational. The Supreme Court agreed. However, they protected such unalienable rights such as an innocent child’s “right to life” protected and addressed in Roe vs Wade.
But, why does the Declaration of Independence state “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as God given, natural unalienable rights; however, the 14th Amendment declare similar rights such as “life, liberty and property” can be taken away from its citizens by due process? Or, not without due process.
You have to understand Constitutional theory and the intent of its authors. Remember, these are self-evident anyways, so it should be considered common sense. Unalienable rights are human rights. The right of all humans, regardless of citizenship. These did not need to be addressed in the Constitution because the United States guaranteed to protect those rights already by contract. Furthermore, the constitution was largely enumerated rights that the States were able to take away. Clearly, Human Rights COULD NOT be in the Constitution by the mere design of its intended purpose of the document.
I hope this makes sense so far.
Now, many agreed that black slaves unalienable freedoms were taken away by greed. However, the Declaration of Independence was written to protect its “citizens”. Since blacks were not considered citizens of the United States, the Federal Government did not have jurisdiction over their ill treatment, however inhuman. Many of those who defended slavery considered blacks less than human. However, for us, many good godly people disagreed and created a civil war over it. The civil war might not have been solely to liberate those forced into slavery, but it did play a big part. And many who were against slavery were willing to lay down their lives to defend them as “humans”.
After the Civil War, the blacks were not only given their freedom, but more importantly, their right to be citizens of the United States and enjoy the same privileges! This was mind blowing. Some were willing to give black, or slaves, their freedom from slavery but to give them protections under the law, the same protections as their children seemed too much to some. The Federal Government was concerned that individuals inside the State (apart from State offices but turning of a blind-eye) would hang its newly granted back citizenship, so it created several amendments after the civil war specifically to protect them. These are referred to the Civil War Amendments.
I will get to my point.
The Federal Government wanted to make sure that blacks were able to have their day in court if their rights were violated! This was NEVER to give States, or the Federal Government the right to take away our inalienable or unalienable rights by “due process”. Unalienable rights are self evident. They are evident to all. The Federal Government did not need to enumerate (number) all those rights, as they presumed the State courts would act fairly and protect its black citizens from their conquered foes. Not only black citizens, but all citizens of the United States from having their Human rights barred or taken away. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
Your parental rights, and the rights of your children are unalienable. The Child/Parent relationship can not be broken or prohibited. The Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment protects all parents to maintain “Care, Control and Maintenance” of their children. Although, this is not entirely correct, as it is the Declaration that protects these, they are correct in stating the fundamental rights of a parent can not be abolished by any State Courtroom. And even parental rights should be considered fundamental.
Your parental rights are human rights. They are not alienable rights that the State can take away with due process (a courtroom). That is why, your parental rights were never suppose to be protected by the Constitution, called the supreme Law of the Land. The promises of those who founded the United States were all authority in Government stems from, were the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. They represented all our government and its officials.
Although State courts do not recognize your Declaration of Independence unalienable arguments, the Supreme Court does and will. In over 100 cases the “spirit” of the Declaration of Independence was addressed and respected. As well as many Parental Rights. More importantly, the right to life. Roe vs. Wade was not given victory over the child’s unalienable right to life, but the argument was when does life begin. Because the timeline of the beginning of life was not definitive, the case was lost due to technical weakness not in reasoning. You still have your inalienable rights. Argue them, use them, just know where they come from. They come from God, and not the Constitution.
But what now?
State officials, Judges, policemen, lawyers etc… will tell you that after a judge makes a decision that that law is now in effect and if you have any problems with your Constitutional Rights being violated that you need to either; take it back to court, appeal it, or speak to a lawyer. However, these answers are incorrect.
Sure, you can go to an appellate court or speak to a lawyer about your children being taken out of the home; however, time and time again the Supreme Court has said that any State law that goes against your Constitutional Rights are Null and Void from the very beginning. That means as if it never happened or officially came into being.
The 2nd Amendment gives its citizens the right to bear arms and to defend their homes and families (children) from enemies both foreign and domestic. That means, the government or the police have no right to take your children without your permission, even with a warrant signed by a Judge. When the police accompany a Child Protection Service agent, they are there to make sure you do not act upon rights to protect your family from tyranny. The same tyranny that we left Great Britain for and why the Declaration of Independence was constructed in the first place.
Sure, the Declaration of Independence says we have a right and obligation to overthrow our own Government if it no longer honors its promises, but don’t think you need to first establish a new Government to protect your children. You already possess that right.
The 2nd Amendment was not so we possess firearms as big as our neighbors to protect our homes, but the 2nd Amendment was so that we posses firearms at the same level that the Government and its armies own. That way, when it comes time, if ever, to overthrow and establish a new Government that we would be able to do it, as its citizens. The cry, “Power to the people” is actually articulately accurate.
Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, what does the bible say about divorce | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shared Custody is NOT in Scripture

Divorce was under a fault based system. That is why you do not see shared custody in Scripture.

Scriptural Custody:

  • If the man initiates divorce and the wife did not commit sexual immorality, the wife gets 100% for Custody for abandonment.
  • If the man puts away his wife for adultery, the man gets 100% Custody because the wife broke the covenant.
  • If the woman was never married to the man she had a baby with, the woman gets 100% custody because he never had authority over the woman.
  • If the woman initiates divorce for any reason (including abuse or adultery), the man gets 100% Custody because a woman was under the authority of her husband and by Mosaic law she was not allowed to initiate the divorce. And, that is why we see men with more than one wife in the Old Testament.
Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is unilateral no-fault divorce lawful to God?

Christians do not understand that Moses’ interjection was an infrigment on God’s marriage covenant between a man and a woman’s unconditional covenant (God as a witness Mal. 2:14, made Him also the judge). God made the two one flesh (Matt. 19:6). Jesus lays this out nicely, in the “beginning” divorce was not so (Matt. 19:8).

However, against design Moses interjected a permission many years later. This unilateral contract (promises the man made to the woman as unconditional) now allowed a man to put away his wife for unfaitfulness (Matt. 19:9). Moses was able to do this because the people covenanted into Moses law (circumcision). This is very similar how we become citizens and fall under the law of the Government.

Now the government has forcefully taken control of marriage, and superseeded God’s law of marriage but “interjecting” their own permissions for divorce. This would seem lawful unless you understand that Jesus looks at civil divorce, apart from God’s law, created adulterous remarriages. Jesus made it clear in Matt. 5:31-32, and Matt. 19:9 that man (government) can not interject their own “permissions” for divorce.

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, what does the bible say about divorce | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

War on Gender!!!

In the beginning, God created man and woman. He created them in their image.

Ever since the fall of man, women and men have been at odds. The Gen. 3:16 was a punishment that put man in charge. And that charge was not always kind.

In the Book of Genesis, marriage was always designed to be unilateral. Meaning, the man went to the potential girl’s home and ask her father for permission to marry her. This is where we get Gen. 2 “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.”

In steps Gender equality. We read in the Bible that there was a constant struggle with headship and submission in the New Testament. Paul had to often correct the women (1 Tim. 2, 1 Cor. 14, Eph. 5) to obey their husband.

This was because the Graeco-Roman laws were bilateral. Meaning, men and women married and divorced at will. They were considered equals. This obviously squashed any patriarchy in the home.

Believers mostly originate from these Gentile cultures. We say, poo-poo to bride prices, betrothal and the like creating a equally shared authority in the home. This was how America was founded. A land of the free and a home of the “fair” practice acts.

As the war for patriarchy fought in the home under Christian and other religious practices became out-dated, a new movement emerged. Feminism.

Feminism fought back. They fought to be equal. They fought for their freedom.

This created a problem for divorces. Divorce in America was based on the English laws. The Matrimony Clause of 1857 was the first time divorce was legislated outside of the church. This gave men the right to initiate a divorce if his wife committed adultery. However, the woman was not allowed to initiate a divorce for adultery alone. There had to be other extenuating evidences.

However, feminism was not going to have this! They pushed to have freedoms to divorce from a man at will. This “at will” freedom was soon put into law by Ronald Reagan in 1969. It was the unilateral “no-fault” divorce. This allowed divorce to be equal, less argumentative, and gave the women the ability to divorce her husband without proving abuse. She was now Free!

This came at a cost. In 1970 other States soon adopted this statue and with it, the “best interest of the Child” standards. This created a whirlwind of devastation across America. The Best interest of the child was to replace the Tender years doctrine. This gave preference to the women if the child was young.

The “best interest of the Child” was a doctrine that came from both Hitler’s reign to America in the 18th century. This was to give power to the Government to decided custody of a child in emergency situations. This, however, was no emergency situation.

This, flipped the script, if you will. Instead of giving more equality to both men and women it gave all authority to the Government. CPS and the United Nations soon caught on to this WONDERFUL, all powerful doctrine and incorporated it into their ligature.

What now?

Now, men fight for equal rights and the woman has all the money, authority and custody. Men have put their tails between their legs and now they are finally paying for it. There are many women in this shared parenting movement but the government is too financially and morally invested. The Title IV-D and Adoption and Safe Families Act has given governmental facilities now financial incentives to carry on.

Is this unfair? Yes!

Can we do anything about it? Maybe.

As the movement continues to fight for shared parenting and repealing unilateral no-fault divorce that started this, they are getting much push-back from those in Government benefiting for Federal funded programs made to support those children taken from the homes.

May God help us!!!



Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Objections, Paul, Sales | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inalienable Rights

The Supreme Court reluctantly admitted that inalienable rights can be taken away by due process. This was evident in the case of the inalienable right to life vs the case of the death row penalty. Stating there was a time to end a life. The inalienable right to life argument was also unsuccessfully used in Roe vs Wade being that they judged life begins outside of the womb.

What that means to us…

Although a parents rights are “natural” and inalienable, the Supreme Court will always say “due process” can take your custody away. Even if you are not found “unfit”. And since Family court is a court of equity (no jury), due process will always be according to the family court judge that is presiding over your case.

While trying to come up with a legal argument regarding parents inalienable rights, I have fallen short due to the constitution’s lack of acknowledging any natural, God-given rights of the parent and the low accountability (oversight) of a judge. The judges will always use the “best interest of the child” standards to justify their decision and the appellate courts will accept these statues as evidence.

The truth of the matter is, there are some inalienable rights that can not be touched by the government and some that can. Liberty is one of those rights that cross over (imprisonment for breaking laws). We must always go through Scripture to know the difference.

So, where do Parental rights fall? Scriptually, the mother always gets full custody of a child if she had that child out of wedlock. Nevertheless, custody always stayed with the father after a divorce. He was the only one who could initiate a divorce according to Scripture and all authority remained with him (Gen. 3:16). The writ of divorcement (Deut. 24:1) said a man puts his wife out of the home, not the children.

Custody cannot be taken away from what was already established as inalienable by God.

The only way a parent who has authority over their child could give away their children was through adoption. But the Bible shows adoption is a voluntary action, otherwise this is called Governmental seizure. If the Government goes against your God-given right as parents, the Declaration of Independence would say you have rights outside of anyone interference to take your children back by the same measures they used against Great Britain.

Let’s go get our kids, parents!

I hope this helps!

Michael Sayen

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Objections, Sales | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Your Rights as Parents

The United States recognizes that you have “inalienable” rights.

What are inalienable rights? Well, the Declaration of Independence itself gives us an idea. The Declaration of Independence declared our rebellion against Great Britain as “We the People.” This was OUR inalienable right, if you will.

The Declaration of Independence not only gave reasons why we were rebelling, but it also stated that we are now an independent Nation free of corruption and free of tyranny. We no longer bend-a-knee, so to speak, to another power greater than ourselves.

Yes, this was our “Dear John” letter to Great Britain. Why is this letter important? Because, it states that we have a God, and being there is a God we have a purpose. What purpose is that you ask? It is to live and thrive as humans just as God intended.

The Declaration of Independence lists several of those inalienable rights. So, what does inalienable mean again? It means, God-given freedoms. God is mentioned 4 times in this most important Document.

We have a God-given right to breath. No one can take our life from us without our permission. We have a God-given right to Liberty. We have a right to be free and not under the forced bondage of another. And lastly, we have a right to pursue our own personal happiness and not the happiness of others.

But are these are only “inalienable” rights? No. These were just inalienable rights that we used to justify our rebellion. A parent would use other inalienable reasons.

God tells us in His word that what God has given us, no man can take away. And God opens up doors that no man can close. What God has given us, no man can harm without His involvement.

The Constitution never mentions “God” or “inalienable” rights. Why? Well, because the United States recognizes that a government can not create or take away one’s inalienable rights. It can only acknowledge them. The Declaration “acknowledge” some of those God-given rights, but now we needed to write a list of laws that governed those that were not. This is what makes the Constitution so incredibly different.

A parent’s rights were not created by man, so they are not directly mentioned in the Constitution to regulate. A parent’s right to their child are so natural and inalienable that it never entered the founding father’s minds to address. The writers of the Constitution understood this. Since then, we have lost touch with that understanding. Only God governs that He gives. Parents are but stewards of his precious gifts.

Although a parent may be able to give their children up for adoption, per se, a parent can never, ever be forced to given them up. The writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence would not disagree.

Don’t let the government fool you into thinking that your parental rights fall under the 14th Amendment. They do not. They fall under the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as “inalienable.” Something the government was never meant to decide through “due process.”

No one decides the custody of your child but you. And if someone, anyone tries to take your children away from you I can confidently says you have 56 signers who would tell you to take up your arms, get back your children and create a new Government (free from tyranny).

Government should never take a parent’s right to their children away, unless it said otherwise by Scripture. But, what about a divorce? The Bible says that a man could put his wife out of the home, leaving with nothing but a signed paper. But this was the only reason a parent should be separated from their child. Even in this, the Government was not directly involved.

May God help us!


Hope this helps!

Michael Sayen

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Sales | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment