In an effort to protect women from domestic abuse, human service professionals and judges institute policies that make them appear to be the champions of abused women everywhere. Zero tolerance/ pro-arrest policies appear to be just what we need to combat the epidemic of domestic violence. We are convinced that a rigid policy is a force for good. It sends a message, we believe. It says to abused women that we care about them.

But what happens when there is posturing behind this policy? What happens when an apparently noble policy is window dressing meant to give the illusion of caring about citizens? What happens when the appearance of caring extends to the point that courts and social service agencies become willing to sacrifice innocent men to satisfy a political agenda? What happens when judges and human service professionals lack the courage to institute standards for screening and substantiating reports of abuse? The courts become the repositories of a noble hypocrisy. One might expect judges to be troubled by this. But judges appear to be unperturbed. They feel confident their hypocrisy will be safeguarded. The tragedy isn't there. The consequences to falsely accused men are catastrophic. Their lives will be ruined. But maybe worse than that, the injustices done to them will be tolerated, even applauded.

Since the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995, we have entered into a period of nationwide anxiety about men. As a result, men have become easy targets of false accusations of abuse. Once accused, they are afforded no legal remedies to challenge the allegations made against them. In fact, women are advised by their lawyers to allege abuse for the sake of winning legal tugs of war in matters of child custody and divorce. Why? Because lawyers now realize that judges will rubber-stamp their requests for protection without question. In many states the standard for evidence has descended to the level of take-my-word-for-it. This gives their clients an obvious and extraordinary advantage.

The author is a human service professional with 30 years' experience. In the course of his divorce proceedings his wife obtains a restraining order after explaining to the judge that he might be a danger to her because he has carpentry tools in his car. Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done is the author's unescorted passage through Hell and a story for everyone to consider who cares about justice and the search for responsible ways to protect women who are at genuine risk of domestic violence.

* Learn what your basic rights are under all areas of family law in Maryland

* Learn the grounds for divorce and annulment in Maryland

* Learn how the court decides custody and visitation

* Learn how to compute your own child support rights and obligations under the Maryland child support guidelines

* Learn how the court decides alimony issues

* Learn how Maryland's marital property law may affect your rights to property owned by you, your spouse, or both of you, including rights to business assets and pensions

* Learn what your rights are under court orders from other states and other countries

* Learn how to use the non lawyers (Pro Se) forms to file your own case for divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, and for modifications of child custody, child support, and alimony

* Learn how to get the court to enforce the court orders that you already have using contempt of court and other forms of judgements

* Learn when you REALLY should get a lawyer.

In an effort to protect women from domestic abuse, human service professionals and judges institute policies that make them appear to be the champions of abused women everywhere. Zero tolerance/ pro-arrest policies appear to be just what we need to combat the epidemic of domestic violence. We are convinced that a rigid policy is a force for good. It sends a message, we believe. It says to abused women that we care about them.

But what happens when there is posturing behind this policy? What happens when an apparently noble policy is window dressing meant to give the illusion of caring about citizens? What happens when the appearance of caring extends to the point that courts and social service agencies become willing to sacrifice innocent men to satisfy a political agenda? What happens when judges and human service professionals lack the courage to institute standards for screening and substantiating reports of abuse? The courts become the repositories of a noble hypocrisy. One might expect judges to be troubled by this. But judges appear to be unperturbed. They feel confident their hypocrisy will be safeguarded. The tragedy isn't there. The consequences to falsely accused men are catastrophic. Their lives will be ruined. But maybe worse than that, the injustices done to them will be tolerated, even applauded.

Since the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995, we have entered into a period of nationwide anxiety about men. As a result, men have become easy targets of false accusations of abuse. Once accused, they are afforded no legal remedies to challenge the allegations made against them. In fact, women are advised by their lawyers to allege abuse for the sake of winning legal tugs of war in matters of child custody and divorce. Why? Because lawyers now realize that judges will rubber-stamp their requests for protection without question. In many states the standard for evidence has descended to the level of take-my-word-for-it. This gives their clients an obvious and extraordinary advantage.

The author is a human service professional with 30 years' experience. In the course of his divorce proceedings his wife obtains a restraining order after explaining to the judge that he might be a danger to her because he has carpentry tools in his car. Terms of Enforcement: Making Men Pay for What They've Done is the author's unescorted passage through Hell and a story for everyone to consider who cares about justice and the search for responsible ways to protect women who are at genuine risk of domestic violence.