The Women's Coalition

Discrimination Against Women Lawsuits

The Women's Coalition will be filing "Discrimination against Women in Family Court" lawsuits. Women who have been discriminated against in a family court in the United States may join (other countries later).
​
Plaintiffs make the claims that they are being denied their state and federal rights to equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process, because they are women.
Declaratory relief is requested confirming women have a right to equal protection and due process in child custody cases and that those rights are being systemically violated in Family Court.
Injunctive relief is also requested. Family Court judges must reinstate plaintiffs’ custody and visitation with their children and/or permit a de novo proceeding.
The lawsuits will be filed in each state's Federal District Court against that state's family court judges collectively. A jury will be demanded.

Please consider donating to our gofundme.
The funds are earmarked for attorneys to file the lawsuits.
Discriminatory Conduct by Judges
The complaint includes a list of types of discriminatory conduct routinely committed by judges.
Each plaintiff will identify ones that apply in her case (easily checked off in the form to join).
a. Denying women a hearing or allowing them only a perfunctory hearing in matters where women’s fundamental rights, liberty interests and other protected rights were at stake.
b. Giving temporary custody to men pending trial when a nondiscriminatory application of the law would have resulted in temporary custody being granted to women.
c. Appointing custody/parenting evaluators who demonstrated bias against women and favored men.
d. Appointing minor’s counsels or guardians ad litem [GAL’s] to represent children who demonstrated bias against women and favored men.
e. Accepting reports from custody evaluators and minor’s counsels/guardians ad litem that discriminated against women and favored men, and allowing them to influence judicial decisions.
f. Ordering women to submit to mental health evaluations while not ordering men to submit to mental health evaluations, based on the same quality and quantity of evidence.
g. Adjudicating matters in a sex discriminatory manner by favoring men even when evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that men should not have been favored.
​
h. Discrediting women despite much evidence supporting they were telling the truth and/or little evidence they were lying; while crediting men despite little evidence supporting they were telling the truth and/or much evidence they were lying.
i. Minimizing and denying credible evidence and reports by women of a man’s abuse or poor parenting; while crediting non-credible evidence and reports by men of a woman’s abuse or poor parenting.
j. Making findings women were alienating children from men when alienation was not occurring; and/or not finding men were alienating children from women when alienation was occurring.
k. Disregarding the legal requirement that courts prioritize the best interests of children in a manner that favored men over women in custody and visitation rulings.
l. Ordering reunification of children with men who were credibly accused of abuse; and not ordering reunification of children with women who were not credibly accused of abuse.
m. Ordering supervised visitation for women without credible evidence they were a danger to the children; and not ordering supervised visitation for men when there was credible evidence they are a danger to the children.
n. Threatening women, but not men, with loss of custody if they objected to the court’s position or orders.
o. Threatening women, but not men, with loss of custody if they continued to litigate for custody of, or visitation with, their children.
p. Issuing orders sealing records that favor women, while not issuing orders sealing records that favor men, based on a similar quality and quantity of evidence.
q. Issuing gag orders against women who spoke out or wanted to speak out, while not issuing similar gag orders against men.
r. Holding women in contempt and/or jailing them for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech; while not holding men in contempt or jailing them for similar behavior.
s. Holding women in contempt and/or jailing them for withholding visitation when they had a good reason, such as to protect children; while not holding men in contempt or jailing them for withholding visitation when they did not have a good reason for doing so.