Back Cover This is one woman’s story about the fast-track education she receives when her husband moves out and files for divorce — what she discovers happens to innocent spouses and children when they are forced into the jaws of the divorce machinery where judges use jackboot tactics to force victims of marital distress, into signing "agreements" in order to speed up the machinery.
There are no rules to this game, other than the one-who-files-first-wins. "Jurisdiction"[who controls the game] is based on a mere residency requirement and any pre-existing agreements intended to protect marriage are crushed by public servants in black robes. Meanwhile, the Church looks the other way while families are marched off to certain doom.
       The demonic nature of our domestic relations courts is an open secret, operating in the light of day.  But history shows that the most sinister schemes have worked that way.
     This is an account of one victim’s experience of the "final solution" for troubled marriages, designed years ago by legal experts intent on "unifying" this country’s response to the troublesome problem of divorce.  No one would escape.
          — Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry

Front Cover Who will stop the collusive annihilation of American Families by the No-Fault Divorce Industry?
     The Forced No-fault Divorce Industry
     Feeds on unhappy spouses while empowering and employing:
     the American Bar Association Family Law Committee,
     the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,
     the Child Support Enforcement Agency,
     the Academy of Family Mediators,
     Court-ordered Psychologists,
     Domestic Relations Judges,
     Daycare Centers,
     Social Workers,
     and attorneys who work in the halls of Justice.

Time line of Changes in Ohio Law   Family protection was gradually removed in Ohio. As the years progressed, abandoning or breaking apart one’s family was condoned while attorney’s work got easier.
     Pre-74 A faithful spouse could choose to obtain divorce if his or her spouse was guilty of grave fault, already married or actually impotent at the time of the wedding. An abandoned spouse could obtain child and spousal support without divorce.
     1-22-74 Husband or wife could earn divorce after abandoning his/her spouse for two years. (SB 348)
     6-5-74 Courts obtained "hammer" of threatening to take a faithful wife’s children away from her if she didn’t sign separation agreement. (HB 233)
     3-30-82 Abandoning spouse could earn divorce after leaving for one year instead of two. Mentally ill spouses could become the responsibility of the state, rather than their spouse after one year, instead of four. (HB 477)
     5-17-89 Attorneys could trick parties into eliminating the one year waiting period for the abandoning spouse, and eliminating any need to prove fault charges against the faithful spouse at home, if both parties could be persuaded to say they were incompatible. (HB 129)
     1-1-91 An abandoned spouse could no longer get alimony support without giving the court the power to liquidate and split all the families’ assets. An unhappy spouse could now initiate a divorce complaint without moving out of the family’s home. Without having to prove fault, the court could take control of all the marital assets and order them be liquidated and used to pay attorneys. (HB 514)
     7-1-98 Rule 75(F) was adopted by the Ohio Supreme court which forbid divorce courts from having final hearings in which an innocent spouse would try to prove he was innocent of grounds until after all the property had been liquidated and split.

Introduction
          My own divorce education began in July of 2003, after my husband moved out of our home.   "He’s abandoned you," a friend of mine told me.  But, I didn’t see it that way.
          I figured we’d continue to get help with our "problem."   After all, my husband had agreed to meet with a local priest, so I was hoping for the best.  But I was badly mistaken.
          On July 21st, I received a message from my husband. It said, "I will be exploring options with my attorney.  I will be getting in touch with you soon to work out fair and reasonable means to ensure our sons can live with and spend time with their father without you being present."
          By that time, I was already borrowing money from my parents to buy groceries.  What was happening to my family was scaring me, so I thought I’d better talk with an attorney.  The advice I got was that I could protect my family’s "right" to be supported if I filed for a legal separation.  After all, my husband had been the sole provider in our family.   The court could require him to continue to live up to this obligation, so I was told.
Coincidentally, on August 12, 2003, my husband and I both filed for legal separation through our respective attorneys.  I filed in order to assure support and to protect my parents from further financial burden.   But, soon enough, I learned that my husband had filed because he really wanted to divorce me, and, in time, he eventually amended his legal complaint to reflect that fact.
          That summer, I went from being a stay-at-home mom (with four young sons) who’d been experiencing marital problems, to a woman desperately trying to stop the civil court’s destruction of my family.  I was quickly learning that I lived in enemy territory.   My husband was being aided and abetted by a $250 billion dollar Divorce Industry, intent on harming our innocent sons by subjecting them to some of the worst kinds of psychological, emotional, spiritual, and financial damage any child can be made to endure — a coerced, "no-fault" divorce.
          No-fault divorce is the industry’s euphemistic term for a divorce in which neither one of the spouses has to accuse the other of abuse, adultery, or neglect — marriage vows are instead terminated by the courts simply because one, or both spouses wants to quit being married.
There seems to be some kind of myth out in the public arena that most divorces are mutually agreed to — that most divorcing people make a fairly peaceful mutual decision about their breakup and determine it is in "everybody’s best interest".   But, according to Frank Furstenberg, Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, and Andrew Cherlin, Professor of Public Policy in the Department of Sociology at John Hopkins University, research shows that four out of five marriages are ended unilaterally. (Pg. 22 (notes at chapter’s end))   In other words, in eighty percent of divorces, there was one partner — like me — who did not want to divorce — there was one partner who wanted to save his/her children from the devastation of a broken home.
This book is our story — the story of those of us who do not want a divorce, but are forced into one anyway by the system.  We don’t have the time or resources to publish a literary masterpiece, so please recognize that this first edition has not been professionally edited.  (Feel free to advise me of errors).
          Those of us who married in the Catholic Church agreed to form a family in accordance with the laws of Christ and His Church.   But we are told by the courts that the agreement we made with our spouses — to be married "until death do us part" — is not enforceable.   We are told that there is a separation of church and state.  We are then told by our own Catholic tribunals that "justice" is being served — because we were never really married in the first place.  We are told at Church-sanctioned "divorce support" group meetings that there is nothing wrong with divorce, so long as no one re-marries without an annulment.
Those of us who live in a state which gives the court authority to order counseling are told the court won’t do it unless both parties agree to go.  Those of us who know divorce is devastating to our children are told that the court-ordered psychologist will be put in charge of making decisions about what is in the "best interests" of our children.  Children who want to live in one home — close to their friends and family — are told they must now leave home to go visit the parent who decided to destroy their intact home.
          If we want to fight any of this, we have to pay tens-of-thousands of dollars for attorneys.  If we want to fight — which will make the judge mad — we might have our children taken away permanently.  The judge can send us to jail for not following court orders inflicted upon us during the process of forcibly breaking apart our families — the judge, we are told makes our children wards of the state.  The judge can order us to pay exorbitantly-high support payments.  The county child support enforcement agency can take away our driver’s license and empty our bank accounts.  We learn all these things as the courts try to beat us into submission.  If we have an honest attorney we might learn about these consequences when we ask for help in trying to save our families.
If we want the legislators to make laws that are fairer, we are underfinanced and inexperienced compared to the Bar Association’s Family Law Committee, who evidently now has control over the legislators.   These Family Law experts convince legislators that their draconian measures are needed in order to "protect" families and children.
          "We" — the spouses who face this family court monster — are automatically judged "guilty" by the system.   We are guilty of wanting an intact family.
          Those in the Divorce Industry tell us that we can’t make a contract in the United States to be married for life — they made certain of this when they changed the laws in every state soon after 1970.
I am convinced the judicial system won’t hear our pleas for help.  I am convinced we aren’t powerful enough to compete with those who now have control over our legislators.  I am convinced that families in this country need a new voice — that we need to start defending families from the grip of this insidious monster.  The health of each individual member of society depends on it, as well as the health of society in general.
So I come to you — the court of public opinion.  Read the facts, decide for yourself.
          — A faithful, dedicated wife and mother

Excerpts
No-fault divorce is the Industry’s euphemistic term for a divorce in which neither one of the spouses has to accuse the other of abuse, adultery, or neglect — marriage vows are instead terminated by the courts . . .

There seems to be some kind of myth out in the public arena that most divorces are mutually agreed to — that most divorcing people make a fairly peaceful mutual decision about their breakup and being it’s in "everybody’s best interest". But, according to Frank Furstenberg, Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, and Andrew Cherlin, Professor of Public Policy in the Department of Sociology at John Hopkins University, research shows that four out of five marriages are ended unilaterally.1 In other words, in eighty percent of divorces, there was one partner — like me — who did not want to divorce — there was one partner who wanted to save his/her children from the devastation of a broken home.

     Those of us who married in the Catholic Church agreed to form a family in accordance with the laws of Christ and His Church. . . . We are told that there is a separation of church and state. We are then told by our own Catholic tribunals that "justice" is being served — because we were never really married in the first place. We are told at Church-sanctioned "divorce support" group meetings that there is nothing wrong with divorce, so long as no one re-marries without an annulment.

     Those of us who live in a state which gives the court authority to order counseling, are told the court won’t do it unless both parties agree to go.

     If we want to fight any of this, we have to pay tens-of-thousands of dollars for attorneys. If we want to fight — which will make the judge mad — we might have our children taken away permanently.  The judge can send us to jail for not following court orders inflicted upon us during the process of forcibly breaking apart our families — the judge makes our children wards of the state. The judge can order us to pay exorbitantly-high support payments. The county enforcement agency can take away our driver’s license and empty our bank accounts. We learn all these things as the courts try to beat us into submission.

     If we want the legislators to make laws that are fairer, we are underfinanced and inexperienced compared to the Bar Association’s Family Law Committee, who evidently now has control over the legislators. These Family Law experts convince legislators that their draconian measures are needed in order to "protect" families and children.

     "We" — the spouses who face this family court monster — are automatically judged "guilty" by the system. We are guilty of wanting an intact family.

     I was thrilled to learn that every county in Ohio has the authority to order marital conciliation services for anyone who requested it. But I quickly became disappointed when I learn that the judges in my county had never implemented the conciliation process outlined in ORC 3117.

     The attorneys in the divorce industry depend on family break-up in order to earn a living.

     The only way for me to "win" at this game is to convince a court-ordered psychologist — who charges $250/hour — or a court ordered children’s attorney — who charges $150/hour plus $15 for every e-mail message — that the children will be harmed by removing them from the familiar surroundings of their home.

     I had my first chance to speak with the judge in my divorce proceeding on June 14, 2004. When I told the judge I was not interested in cooperating with the divorce proceeding because my husband and I had an antenuptial ("before marriage") agreement to be married for life in accordance with a specific set of predefined laws, she told me that didn’t matter. She said:

     "My job is to carry out the law. When a divorce comes in front of me, I must deal with it.
     I do not deal with religious issues, and we talked about this briefly in chambers that there is a separation of church and state.
     I have been on the Bench for 15 years. Over the years, religious issues have come before me. It is the law that we cannot enforce any religious agreement. If it becomes a contract that is part of a divorce decree, that’s a different issue, but any religious element to this is something we are not allowed to address.
     When you feel that we do not have jurisdiction over this, that there is a higher power, that your religious conviction and the contract you entered into in front of your priest has priority, I can understand that, from a religious point of view, but it doesn’t from a secular point of view, and doesn’t from a legal point of view. We have talked about that." (Court Transcript, Pg. 2021)
     I’m not allowed to take into account religion. It’s called separation of church and state. That is what the law is." (ibid. pg. 26)

     On June 14th, 2004, the judge explained to me that any agreement signed in divorce proceedings becomes a court order. I have signed visitation agreements, agreements to sell the home we own, and an agreement to quit home-schooling. If I refuse to follow through on previous agreements obtained during divorce proceedings, I was warned:

     "If you refuse to sign it [document needed to follow through on other previous agreement] you are in direct contempt of this court because I’m ordering you to sign it right now. I am ordering you to sign that ... agreement as you had agreed to and as it was incorporated in a court order in February. I am ordering you to sign that ... agreement.
     If you refuse, I will find that you are in direct contempt of this Court, and I have the sheriffs in the back. They will put you in jail for direct contempt of court. I don’t want to do that, but unfortunately that is the law.
     Okay. Do you understand that? So talk to your attorney. The sheriffs are there waiting." (Transcript, pg. 7)

     The American Tribunal system apparently has a different idea than headquarters (the Vatican) does of what constitutes a marriage.

     Just after my husband left, our two year old started telling me that he hated me. When I finally got him to explain what was bothering him, he said he hated me because I wouldn’t let Daddy come home. When he finally said that, his tight, angry body, went limp and he and I just held onto each other and wept together on the hall carpet. Then, I explained, "Oh no, I never told Daddy to leave! I love Daddy and I want him to come home!"

     In the current situation, the Catholic Church isn’t being heroic — it is throwing me out to the wolves while just standing back and watching. . . . .They want us to pretend that we are not really married because we can just get an annulment. They want us to pretend that the civil forced divorce industry is fair, and they want us to pretend that our children will be fine, even after we remarry a new partner and try to blend two families.

     My four sons don’t want to have to go back and forth and live in two separate households. They don’t want two Mommies or two Daddies, if either of us were to get remarried.

     As long as church representatives are silent, nothing will change, and more misguided unhappy spouses will destroy their canonically-valid marriages.

     What they didn’t publicize was that H.B. 233 provided the "hammer" needed to keep divorce cases moving through the system. Children became pawns of the court -- an effective tool to intimidate and control terrified parents who were merely trying to save their families. Jail was the final threat for those who wouldn’t comply with the destruction of their families by reaching an agreement on their own.