Mr. Deering filed for divorce and joint custody of his children at the Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan. Their mother, sick with displaced anger over her childhood traumas and depressed to the point of being suicidal, repeatedly threatened; “I’m going to be a miserable x-wife, you’ll be lucky when you see the kids, and you’re going to pay me child support. I’m going to ruin you financially through the courts!” Mr. Deering was quite naive at the time and believed he would have a fair adjudication of his divorce and custody issues. Moreover, he believed that his wife’s diminished mental state and open threats would only undermine her vendetta. To his astonishment and horror the Oakland County Friend of the Court personnel not only ignored her depression and displaced rage, they encouraged and defrauded the Court in lockstep with her.

To carry out her vendetta Mr. Deering’s former wife interfered with his relationship with his father, resulting in the loss of his job at the family business, and brought numerous Motions during the divorce proceedings. As noted by his former attorney, Scott Bassett, most if not all the issues covered under the Motions were required to be adjudicated in a formal hearing with evidence weighed. Regardless, following stereotypical singular dimensioned roles of Ken Provider/Barbie Doll Nurturer Judge John McDonald granted every Motion in her favor.

Regardless of her efforts and the assistance she received from the Oakland County Court and Friend of the Court, on January 28, 1994 Mr. Deering was able to preserve Shared Economic Custody by retaining 168 plus overnights per year with his children in the final Judgment of Divorce. As such he was providing direct parental support through extensive parenting time and care of his children. Though far from receiving the equal protection of the law, at least he could carry on as a father pro actively involved in the lives of his children. Or so it seemed. However, Judge John McDonald and FOC Referee David Bertucci had a vastly different view of justice, one that allowed them to act outside of their statutory authority, violate their oaths of office, and take the law into their own hands.

Oakland County Court House Liberty Statue
with Scales of Justice Removed
Is there any wonder why?

Subsequently Judge John McDonald issued an Order For Support that violated the Joint Economic Custody terms, and Mr. Deering was repeatedly show caused by Friend of the Court Referee Bertucci for failure to pay. At the Show Cause Hearings Mr. Deering presented numerous constitutional defenses, all to no avail. And when he pointed out to Judge McDonald that he had Shared Economic Custody via 168 overnights the judge seemed surprised (a little difficult to comprehend since the Judgment of Divorce is part of the Court Record) and ordered Referee Bertucci to correct the support calculations accordingly. At last a reprieve; Mr. Deering  could go home and get on with his life and being a father. . . .

You cannot imagine how dumbfounded Mr. Deering was when Referee Bertucci ignored the judge’s Order and brought a Motion for Child Support with Imputed (phantom) Income and without the Shared Economic Custody terms mandated by the Judgment of Divorce. Mr. Deering’s former wife joined in the Fraud Upon the Court by  bringing a Motion in Support of Bertucci’s recommendation as if she didn’t know she had agreed to Joint Economic Custody. Not only had she agreed to Joint Economic Custody, but she also agreed to an additional 50% reduction when Mr. Deering had 8 consecutive overnights with his children. The “waiver” of Joint Economic Custody, as referred to by Judge McDonald, was only for the remainder of 1993, as is clearly stated in the Judgment of Divorce, page 5. Regardless, Judge McDonald, without statutory authority, entered the Recommendation of the FOC and Ordered Child Support over Mr. Deering’s Objection, and Motion for a Judicial Hearing.  He did so openly stating on the record; “I don’t care about your right to the pursuit of happiness.” These are the very words from the Declaration of Independence that the U.S. Supreme Court attaches to a parent’s right to directly raise their children in the case of In Re Troxel. Even now after all these years, the only words that can come close to expressing what Mr. Deering felt are; absolute and utter betrayal. The very courts that were erected to protect our rights were the ones violating them. It’s no wonder Mr. Deering’s case was repeatedly called in the late afternoon when most litigants had left the courtroom and there were few if any witnesses.

Subsequently, FOC Bertucci brazenly started the endless series of Show Cause Hearings with its threat of incarceration on their lawless Support Order.  The divorce process had cost Mr. Deering everything, even his  business. He was bankrupt. After filing for bankruptcy the Automatic Stay was served upon Judge McDonald – Mr. Deering was in his courtroom and watched him sign it. The very next day Bertucci brought another Show Cause before McDonald, and in violation of the Bankruptcy Stay Judge McDonald authorized a Bench Warrant when Mr. Deering didn’t appear. Upon speaking with Bertucci (Judge McDonald refused Mr. Deering’s calls) Bertucci stated he didn’t care about the Bankruptcy Stay and he would leave the Bench Warrant on the system. Only after Mr. Deering’s  bankruptcy attorney called Bertucci informing him of his Contempt of the Federal Bankruptcy Court did Bertucci remove his lawless Bench Warrant. At the next hearing McDonald & Bertucci postured as if ignorant of what they had done.

After the Bankruptcy Stay was lifted FOC Referee Bertucci commenced his lawless chain of Contempt Hearings again, and Judge McDonald refused to hear or consider the Judgment of Divorce, its Shared Economic Custody terms, his violation of procedural law, or his Fraud Upon the Court; he incarcerated Mr. Deering for Contempt. As with most people in this situation Mr. Deering had to borrow the money in order to regain his freedom. As he had observed of other litigants, the series of Show Causes had turned into a series of incarcerations for Contempt in flagrant violation of our constitutional rights to Due Process & Equal Protection of the law.

Bankrupt, jobless, emotionally devastated, facing homelessness, unable to parent his children or continue his education due to threats of and actual incarceration, incensed with the injustice, and with no hope of redress, Mr. Deering left the State and his beloved children on September 25, 1995 (this is an important date to remember). Mr. Deering still remembers saying good bye to them as though it were yesterday. Tears welled up in their eyes, eyes to young to comprehend the prejudice and discrimination and corruption of our times. He repeatedly tried to stay in touch with them through phone calls, letters, birthday cards, and family. But it was hopeless. Two of his former wife’s ugly threats came to be, she was a miserable x-wife and Mr. Deering would not be seeing his children, regardless of his constitutional rights explicitly retained in the Judgment of Divorce.

No amount of Usurpation, no amount of Discrimination, no amount of Fraud Upon the Court, no amount of violations of our Rights to Due Process and Equal Protection creates a valid obligation, either morally or legally. No matter how moral sounding the banner the courts and friend of the courts hide behind, be it “Child Support,” Child Care, Child Maintenance, Child Preservation, etcetera, when a parent is ready, willing, and able to provide direct support of one’s children, there is no moral or legal ground for depriving them of their parental rights. The State has no such authority, it has no authority to replace the judgment of a fit, willing and able parent. Nor is there any moral or legal ground for depriving parents of their day to day life choices, and their freedom. To do so, as in Mr. Deering’s case, is nothing short of State perpetrated, child collateralized extortion.

Though gender bias, stereotyping, and discrimination played a significant role, the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than this; there is the corrupting financial incentives of Title IV-D.