« Japan's Virgin Wives Turn To Sex Volunteers | Main | Blog For The Marcus Wesson Trial »

April 04, 2005

Lowell Jaks Is Gearing Up For A Fight

My regular readers know that Lowell Jaks, the founder of the fathers' rights group Alliance for Noncustodial Parents Rights (ANCPR), was imprisoned for kidnapping his son and spiriting him away to the Dominican Republic. You may read my Lowell Jaks/ANCPR archive, which tells the whole story, at this link.

He is now out of jail, and he has no contact with his son. I just received word from his ex-wife Elaine Rudis-Jackson that he has shown no remorse for what he had done. He said "I'm glad we did what we did. I'm proud of what I did. I went ahead with this action." [...] "I let my principles get the better of my judgement," said Jaks. But added that he didn't agree with the court system having jurisdiction over families "and not the parents as it should be. This results in severe dislocation. The situation is just untenable, equivalent to a modern day holocaust."

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

Jaks recently had a hearing about his case, and he's not happy that he didn't get what he wanted. Rudis-Jackson heard him say "this is great, this is just what I wanted to have happen. The media is going to hear about this" referring to "not even being able to send a birthday card to his son".

He hasn't learned a thing, which doesn't surprise me. He has no regrets about what he had done. I think there is a danger that he could kidnap his son again, and it looks like the courts see the same possibility.

It also looks like he is still living off of ANCPR membership fees. His views haven't changed. He believes that "as of the institution of so-called 'no fault divorce' in the late 70's - has one motivation and only one. That is, to legitimate adultery by women."

This man is not fringe. ANCPR is one of the most popular (and nastiest) fathers' rights groups out there. It's driving force is helping men get out of paying child support. Jaks himself owed $100,000 in child support and penalties to his two ex-wives. I hope he continues to be denied contact with his son. It's for the best.

Posted on April 4, 2005 at 09:07 AM | Permalink

Comments

After having read through all of the related information, I'm a bit conflicted. The man appears to be a psychopath, but on the other hand, even the daughter admits that Alec adored him. This tells me that there was no kidnapping -- Alec likely went willingly. I note that absent from any reporting is any opinion from Alec about what he wanted.

Blocking a man from seeing his children is a cruel thing, and not likely to contribute to his mental health. The judgement of 10-year-old children rightfully not regarded as deterministic of what is best for their welfare, however, the court may well be in the right on this, assuming the other allegations are correct -- not because of risk of abduction, but because him being an unfit parent.

I'll risk a little outrage by noting that he has a certain justification for feeling no remorse; the state is often in error when it decides to split children from their parents. I remember a case where children were removed from a household for no better reason than that the parents were Wiccan -- and the grandparents objected. If the parents were to "kidnap" their children back and flee the country in that case, I'd be completely supportive. Too often, kids are stripped from their parents for wildly insufficient cause, and I have a deep-seated distrust of the judgement of social workers.

With the debunking of the vilification of Michael Schiavo fresh in my mind, I'm also a little suspicious of the reliability of the charges that he was abusive, though I am inclined to trust that the courts have had better access to real facts when they made their decisions. Refusal to pay child support also weighs heavily against him, though evidence of his financial standing is also absent.

I guess what bothers me about reading about this from your angle, Trish, is that there's practically no hard evidence out there to work with to make a judgement one way or another. Would you have been as quick to condemn if the genders had been reversed, and the children were staying with the father when a child left with the mother?

Posted by: Zed Pobre at Apr 4, 2005 12:00:47 PM

Jaks's ex-wife did not interfere with his visitation. Jaks chose to not pay child support to both of his ex-wives, and he was angry about it. He is not permitted contact with his son now because of the kidnapping. He has no regrets, and there is a good chance he will attempt it again. That's why he is forbidden from seeing his son.

He also said in an article interview that men sometimes "crack" and they kill their families. Specifically, he said ""None of these guys are poster children, but when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack." He does not hold those men responsible for these kinds of murders. He blames the dead mothers and the court system for those deaths.

You are wrong in supporting what he did and not seeing that he brought on his problems himself. It's not because the courts have forbidden him from seeing his child. You got it backwards - he is forbidden from seeing his son because of what he had done. There is plenty of hard evidence that I have not posted on my blog. What this man did was reprehensible and he is paying the consequences for it.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 4, 2005 12:32:40 PM

I remember looking at Jaks' website around the time of the kidnappping and finding out that he already had time with his son several times a week. This by his own admission. Geez, most non-custodial parents would be thrilled to get what he had; it was practically 50/50. One sign of a potential abuser: It's never enough. Must have total control. It's never enough, until you have managed to eliminate the other parent, which is what Jaks attempted to do by taking the kid to the D.R. Basically eliminate the other parent from the scene. Now is ex is having to respond in kind, just so the kid doesn't disappear from her sight forever.
Pychopathic and charming to kids. Those two concepts are not in conflict at all. In fact, they usually coincide. That's why it's so difficult fighting these people. But the charm is all surface. Psychopaths are totally unable to empathize with the feelings or needs of other human beings. They can pour it on when they need to, but it's all performance and show. Doesn't prevent them with continuing their tactics of intimidation and bullying in private.
The allegations of abuse aren't just a he said/she said. The same things came out from the previous marriage and the children from that marriage. How many have to speak out till we get some suspicion that this guy is just a few cards short of a deck?

Posted by: silverside at Apr 4, 2005 12:42:05 PM

It is not considered wrong, I hope, to be skeptical of condemnation when you cannot find the supporting evidence.

That said, that he had strong visitation rights prior to his leaving the country (thanks, Silverside), and that even he did not allege that the mother was unfit to parent speaks strongly against him; I am thus inclined to believe that there is additional evidence that Trish has seen that I have not.

As a side note, there is a strong distinction between noting negative repercussions to a situation and actually endorsing negative behaviour. While Trish may or may not be correct in that he doesn't believe the men are responsible, that conclusion doesn't follow from the quote given, which is (taken at face value) actually true, though I would hope that the actual percentage is vanishingly small.

Posted by: Zed Pobre at Apr 4, 2005 2:37:06 PM

Since when does kidnapping have anything to do with whether the child went with their kidnapper willingly or not? Last I heard there were a great many kidnapping cases where the child went willingly with a parent, family member, or family friend.

Posted by: WookieMonster at Apr 4, 2005 2:42:17 PM

Hi, this is Elaine. I thought I would chime in because, after all, I was the one in court with Mr. Jaks the other day. Silverslide, you hit it right on the head, dead center: this is much more about his mental state than anything. I hope you all understand I wish that things had worked out very differently for Mr. Jaks in court. I wish that he had come in and had been able to show and demonstrate remorse for taking Alec away from his family (all of his family, my side and his side) and especially his then almost 2 year old brother (the two are very close). Alec also lost, through Lowell's actions, the comfort of his father's home, the companionship of his dogs, his movies, his gamecube, and being able to see his dad several times a week. This was hard for Alec, and something a real father would be sorry for.

And why did Lowell do this, you may wonder? He must have had a good reason! Don't believe any of the rhetoric Lowell wants you (and himself) to swallow. He did it because his income was dropping and he was facing tens of thousands of dollars in back childsupport to the government who supported his previous ex-wife and kids in the lap of poverty (welfare) while he was gallivanting with me and Alec in Canada and India, and for which he also owes the federal government $100,000 plus in student loans (you should see my shameface: I was young and didn't understand what I was helping him get away with). It certainly wasn't MY piddling $163 a month that he "refused" to pay beginning in September '03 that he was running from, in any case. And he could live cheap on a tropical island, with no nasty DAs breathing down his neck! No, he did it for very selfish, self serving reasons, because running away is something that he has done over and over in his life, starting when he dropped any relationship with his high school girlfriend when she became pregnant with his first child, a girl that he didn't bother meeting until she was 7 years old...

And now, after all that planning and scheming and (child) stealing, he is in the same position as before, ie, he has to pay the back child support (and current child support) on whatever he is able to scrape together from gullible people (hey, did you know that he is also a psychic/zen buddhist/meditation master? check out his other websites!) but much, much worse. He is a convicted felon. He has to pay restitution for the $3500 in tickets Kern county paid to fly me and our son home. He is on probation. And finally, he has absolutely no contact with his son. Because he wanted to punish me for ever "winning" custody in the first place (sorry, California doesn't award custody to those who are found to be abusive). Because he wanted to escape.

So we're in court, and I bring in the articles that show, to me, that Lowell has no cognition or understanding that what he did was wrong. And the judge opens the door wide open, and says basically that we all say things we don't mean and is this possibly what happened in your case Mr. Jaks?? And instead of a simple "yes" or "I'm sorry" or whatever, out comes this diatribe about how the courts are messed up, he was wronged, and you know, he took his son to a beautiful tropical island! How could you beat that? It may have "inconvenienced" the mother, but he certainly didn't put him in any danger... In a word he answered "No, I really believe I did a good thing". You can't imagine what it was like for me to hear that come out of his mouth. His inconveniencing me, for the record, caused so much stress and sorrow that I lost the baby girl I was carrying at 20 weeks... It was devastating, and as I've said before, there are simply no words to describe how bad it REALLY was.

Long story short, Lowell is not in compliance with probabtionary orders that he undergo psychological counseling through Kern county mental health (he claims there are no such orders, but I've seen them myself). There is also a stipulation that he undergo a psych eval with a qualified professional before any visitation resumes; to show that contact would not be detrimental to Alec's well being. Do I have to say that it wasn't done? That was why the court rightfully denied his petition. He's not ready. He hasn't done the work. And he would rather proclaim his blowhard, largely invented "philosophies" than be a father to his son. It's a sad thing for Alec, but from what I know of him it doesn't surprise me, not at all. Like I said, I wish it had been different. Who wants a selfish psychopath for the father of your child??

Posted by: ExWife at Apr 4, 2005 7:38:43 PM

"...With the debunking of the vilification of Michael Schiavo fresh in my mind..."

Who debunked that he was a villain? He's still a villain in my book...that last miserable bit of spite he pulled by having Terri's remains cremated and sent to PA showed exactly what a spiteful, hate-filled assh*le Michael Schiavo really was...

Whatever the future has in store for that a@@ will be richly deserved...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 4, 2005 10:15:37 PM

"Now is ex is having to respond in kind, just so the kid doesn't disappear from her sight forever."

Even that assessment is optimistic...as I can see him trying again even without the visitation reinstated...what's to stop him from meeting the kid after school and the two of them taking off again???? He sounds resourceful and I'm sure already knows what school is son is in...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 4, 2005 10:20:00 PM

"So we're in court, and I bring in the articles that show, to me, that Lowell has no cognition or understanding that what he did was wrong. And the judge opens the door wide open, and says basically that we all say things we don't mean and is this possibly what happened in your case Mr. Jaks?? And instead of a simple "yes" or "I'm sorry" or whatever, out comes this diatribe about how the courts are messed up, he was wronged, and you know, he took his son to a beautiful tropical island! How could you beat that?"

But this is the main problem...as the Judge appeared quite willing to bend over backwards for him if he had shown even the SLIGHTLY hint of phony contrition...I'm sorry to say this but I predict he WILL eventually show that contrition and get visitation reinstated putting you back to Square one with this jackoff trying to abduct your kid again...

BTW, I visited the Dominican Republic and know quite a few people from the island and it is NOT exactly a tropical paradise (just on the surface it is)...Actually because of the poor health care system there many of the people I know STILL have family living there that regularly plan their vactions to come to the US to get checkups and other routine medical care...Even surgery or dental checkups are planned around vacations here...

So he put your son at risk that even an ear or throat infection could have morphed into something far worse and there would have been little of the medical infrastructure we have here in the US to treat your son...

You should try to have his passport revoked as well, since with his willingness to travel abroad, he could take your son to someplace else...although somebody like him could probably get a fake passport pretty easily...

The arrogance of the man is unbelievable...to smart-mouth off to the Judge like that right in his COURTROOM...he's lucky he didn't catch a nasty NY Judge, they might have moved to have his parental rights terminated PERMANENTLY...although maybe he doesn't care at this point since it will terminate his obligation to pay child support to you...


Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 4, 2005 10:37:22 PM

Sorry to hear what you've been through Elaine. My ex is a "charming" psychopath, as well. But the courts gave him joint custody. It takes very little for a father to gain joint custody in California. The bar is much higher for mothers.

That doesn't mean there aren't great fathers around. It just means that even the not-so-great fathers have a lot more power in the legal system.

I'd venture a guess that a significant number of family law judges would qualify as psychopaths or "sociopaths" if they had to withstand the same testing that parents do.

And, thanks for sharing your story.

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 5, 2005 2:56:46 AM

Lowell Jaks may have recruited one more dumb MFer in the bunch...my ex #2 literally swears that this activist group is making head-way in legislation and abroad. He's about as dumb as a box of rocks if he thinks I'm givnign in to any scare tactics that he may or may not have. I'm positng this e-mail that incurred between us this morning...he makes broad mention of the ANCPR in this e-mail and let me tell you, I just about threw up!
Here it is folks!(e-mails deleted even if it is to protect his sorry @$$)):


Ken: LoL

You are just to funny “I deserve that right just as much as you do” If you deserve the right it would be alimony and it is not so, your rights aren’t even considered, Jessie’s rights are. Shared custody means that while Jessie is in your care you are custodial and while she is with me I am custodial. There is no such thing as a non custodial parent when it is a shared custody divorce. Evidently you might want to look a little deeper into the things that are being changed here in Florida and who is behind them and which way the laws are going. That is all I have to say and once again Have a nice day.

-----Original Message-----
From: M., Jeanie [deleted]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Ken O.
Subject: RE: Jessie: Bus rider
Importance: High

Ken:I sent you an email 2 days after we signed the lease at the apartments with all of the information…except the apartment number...........Jeanie: I have past e-mails asking for this information and both times you avoided the answer.

Ken: As for the visitation you keep referring to, I think you need to look up the states definition of SHARED custody. In fact why don’t you look up the Federal Courts definition of SHARED custody; Jeanie: We’re not quite at the Federal level yet and I know quite well the definition of Shared custody..........in any case you are NOT custodial parent and with that being said, it’s STILL visitation.

Ken: If you want to play I can play and I’m totally ready. I more ready now than I have ever been. While you’re doing your research you might want to look up the group ANCPR. The laws are changing and not in your favor. Have a nice day

Jeanie: The laws are changing; but unfortunate for you, and ANCPR (Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights) hasn’t even made a chip in the iceberg. It might be a little while before they get to YOUR requests. Only because these people have nothing better to do than to weasel out of and whine about the true definition of “child support”. “Maintaining the level of comfort to the minor child PRIOR to the divorce between the parties”. I deserve that right just as much as you do...........so step up to the plate.

Anyway, look that one up, bright boy. Matter of factly, I think I have it right here...........


Child Support

Divorce
Headquarters

By definition, CHILD SUPPORT is a financial contribution paid by the non custodial parent to the custodial parent towards the expenses of raising his or her children. That seems pretty cut and dry. However, child support can turn into a major issue as divorces are often wrought with emotions.

In most states there are specific guidelines which are followed in the determination of how much child support is to be allocated. Each state is different, but most states take into consideration the income levels (both earned and unearned) of both the parents as well as the expenses associated with raising the child in their determination. That is a very broad example of how it can be calculated. Often there are complicated formulas and schedules that are used. Keep in mind that a judge has the authority to deviate from the guidelines if he or she determines that the situation warrants it.

Unfortunately, child support is often misconstrued by the payor, who may feel that the custodial parent is not using the funds to support the child. On the other side of the equation is the custodial parent who may feel that they are barely making ends meet while the non custodial parent's lifestyle has barely changed. More often than not, they are misconceptions.

Here are a few things to keep in mind about child support:

Child support is money that is being used for the child. The payor may not agree with how the funds are being used, but that isn't their decision to make. The use of child support funds is at the discretion of the custodial parent.
Even if the custodial parent earns more than the non custodial parent, child support payments will have to be made.
Child support often doesn't include extra curricular activities. Extra curricular activities would include such things as Little League, dance lessons, etc. If possible, both parents should contribute to these in addition to the court ordered child support. Often if there are specific, known extra expenses their payment can be allocated in the divorce agreement.
Child support is not taxable to the recipient nor is it deductible to the payor.
Always make your child support payments on time, with pride in the knowledge that you are contributing to the support of your children. There is no room in child support for bitterness or anger at your ex. This is true for the recipient as well as well as the payor.
It is common in most states, and mandatory in others to have wages garnished for child support. This is nothing to be ashamed of. It is such a common occurrence that there is no longer any stigma attached to it. Today most employers have direct deposit of payroll checks where the employee's pay can go to several accounts in the amount established by the employee. If this is available to you, you should try to make an agreement with your ex spouse to have the payments made through direct deposit. This will be easier and better for everyone. First the payor does not have to write a check which is always done begrudgingly when made payable to the ex-spouse even when it is for the support of the children. This will avoid that problem. As far as a record, your pay stub is your receipt. Secondly, the money will always be paid on time and will be available for immediate use.
Do not involve your children. Your children should never know the amount of support that is to be paid. All discussions regarding support should be handled directly between the parents. Remember to keep the children "out of your battles".
If you are not receiving your payments try to work it out with your ex spouse. If this is not possible or is not satisfactory then it would be better to seek professional intervention such as an attorney or mediator.
Remember that you should never use your children as pawns in a dispute. If payments are not made or not made promptly, do not interfere with the visitation rights of your ex-spouse. Support and visitation should be kept as separate issues. While the financial aspect is important, it is equally important for the children to have the love and emotional support of both parents.
While payment amounts are determined based upon specific guidelines, they can also be negotiated. If you and your ex-spouse can reach a fair and amicable decision on what the payments should be, than all those involved will be happier in the long run. Why put the determination of child support into the hands of a stranger (the judge) if you don't have to. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY BEFORE AGREEING TO ANY CHILD SUPPORT ARRANGEMENT.
Payments will continue until all the children of the marriage become emancipated. Basically emancipation is an act by which parents relinquish their right to custody and are relieved of their duty to support the child. Emancipation can occur upon a child's marriage, induction into military service, by court order based on the child's best interest, as stipulated in the divorce agreement or when the child reaches an appropriate age. Appropriate age does not always mean 18 as many believe. When drawing up your divorce agreement it is important to clearly state at what age or milestone (such as high school graduation, college graduation, marriage or they become self sufficient) emancipation will occur. If your children are young, you may not even consider this issue, but you should. An unclear agreement made today may haunt you in the years to come.

If you have more than one child and a child is emancipated the amount that is to be paid is recalculated according to the schedules and guidelines of your particular state. It is not a percentage of the number of remaining children. Let's say that you have 3 children and the amount of support is $300 per week. The new amount is not $100 per child, so therefore when the first child is emancipated the amount does not automatically become $200, it will be recalculated based on 2 children.

One last thought on the subject. Keep in mind that child support is for the children. It is to keep their lifestyles the same as if you were not divorced. Children should not be victims of divorce or deprived of a normal childhood because of it.

Return to top of child support page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Do not take any actions based upon the information contained within this web site without first consulting an attorney or an appropriate professional depending upon the content of the information.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Developed and created by
JT Spaulding Associates

"No tool is more beneficial than intelligence. No enemy is more harmful than ignorance."

Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Harithi al-Baghdadi al-Mufid

Jeanie M.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken O.[deleted]
Sent: August 08, 2005 10:18 AM
To: M., Jeanie
Subject: RE: Jessie: Bus rider


I’m not in violation of anything the state and courts all know my physical address and telephone number… You do also. I sent you an email 2 days after we signed the lease at the apartments with all of the information…As for the visitation you keep referring to, I think you need to look up the states definition of SHARED custody. In fact why don’t you look up the Federal Courts definition of SHARED custody. If you want to play I can play and I’m totally ready. I more ready now than I have ever been. While you’re doing your research you might want to look up the group ANCPR. The laws are changing and not in your favor. Have a nice day

-----Original Message-----
From: M., Jeanie [deleted]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Ken O.
Subject: RE: Jessie: Bus rider
Importance: High

School supplies (you looking for an award?): as you’re supposed to anyway, each of us supplies her with what is needed for school. The expense is shared—she will always have “double” of what she’s supposed to in any case.

Daycare: Working on, because come hell or high water you’re gonna help out there too.

Class: I know what room and her teacher’s name; I received the card a couple weeks ago.

Information: Nothing that you’re not capable of finding out for yourself—you’re a big boy. I’ve kept you informed all that I’m required to. You, however, are in violation of the full physical address of your residence. Let’s play, shall we?

"No tool is more beneficial than intelligence. No enemy is more harmful than ignorance."

Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Harithi al-Baghdadi al-Mufid

Jeanie M.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken O.[deleted]
Sent: August 08, 2005 9:56 AM
To: M., Jeanie
Subject: RE: Jessie: Bus rider

I’m glad you took the time over the last few weeks to make these arrangements and waiting for the last minute to let me know…We have already purchased all of her school supplies and they are in her classroom. Her Teachers name is Mrs. Mondello and she is in room 145. Her room is on the total opposite side of the school. I will make sure she gets our home until you find out which daycare you are going to be switching her to this year.

Kenneth O

-----Original Message-----
From: M., Jeanie [deleted]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:43 AM
To: Ken O.
Subject: Jessie: Bus rider
Importance: High

Jessie will be bus rider when she’s at home; you’ll be scheduled to pick her up on your visitation days at 6:00 pm.

She’ll probably be parent-pick up on your visitation days.

This will stand until day care can be established at reasonable costs.

"No tool is more beneficial than intelligence. No enemy is more harmful than ignorance."

Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Harithi al-Baghdadi al-Mufid

Jeanie M.

Posted by: Jeanie at Aug 8, 2005 2:15:09 PM