Men’s Legal Center Attorney Marc E. Angelucci with Appellants in front of 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento

The following is a report from John Dias regarding today’s historic California appellate hearing in Sacramento. The report is also posted on www.antimisandry.com. Thank you John for the excellent summation regarding Woods et al. v. California.

“I attended the court hearing today. The court that was hearing the case is a state court, a California appellate court one step below the California Supreme Court. There was a three judge panel -- an Asian woman, a black man (presiding), and a white man. [Attorney, brackets my own] Marc Angelucci, of the National Coalition for Free Men [and Men’s Legal Center], was very eloquent in his opening remarks. He was challenging two statutes on the basis of anti-male gender discrimination. The first was the statute in the health and safety code that defines domestic violence as a crime against women (this excluding funding to shelters that exclusively serve male victims, and giving shelters the legal right to turn male victims away). The second statute that Angelucci was challenging was a statute that allocated money to incarcerated parents for the care of their children during the parent's incarceration; this program excludes men from applying, even though the number of incarcerated fathers dwarfs that of incarcerated mothers.

The justices peppered Marc with "devil's advocate" questions, which he responded to deftly, with a clear knowledge of case law, statutory law, and especially precedents set by that very same appellate court. Marc hammered away at the fact that the law is discriminatory on its face, violating the state Constitution, and even pointed out that male victims that are denied assistance run the risk of turning into abusers themselves (as the CDC has pointed out), continuing the cycle of violence. For example, some of the justices asked whether it might be justified to discriminate if the "vast majority" of domestic violence is against women; at what point does it become justified to deny services to male victims if the number of male victims is marginal (say, one percent)? Marc pointed to the more than 200 published and peer reviewed studies that showed that women definitely are NOT the "vast majority" of DV victims. He said that the 90% figure that feminists point to pertains to applicants to shelters, which are mostly female -- the 90% figure thus has nothing to do with the prevalence of female victims of domestic violence. Marc also pointed out that according to the federal government (CDC), one third of all DV injuries are sustained by men -- a significant number -- reinforcing the argument that discrimination against male victims is unjustified on the pretext that there are just "too few" male victims to help. Further, Marc pointed to the numerous DV experts that submitted sworn statements to the court in his case briefings, all of whom testified to the fact that male victimization from DV is far, far more prevalent than the pittance that the current policy (and its feminist advocates) are claiming. He also pointed out that the government's own appointed counsel did not even bother to provide a rebuttal to these experts or any of the numerous (and growing) studies that reveal the prevalence of domestic violence to be closer to parity between male and female victims. On all of these points, Marc spoke with a command of the facts, a clear knowledge of the law, as well as an unmistakable passion and moral authority that the opposing counsel simply lacked. The justices asked him what sort of remedy he expected from them, whether to add the phrase "and men" to the statute, or simply to make the wording of the statute to be gender neutral. Angelucci advocated for the latter.

On the issue of incarcerated fathers being denied services to help their children during the incarceration due to their sex, Angelucci was also very persuasive. On this issue the justices showed greater skepticism. Several times, they posited the question that mothers are not in the same situation as fathers due to their pregnancy in prison. Angelucci pointed out that even this was a matter of technology, where pregnancy may not be the exclusive domain of the female sex in the future (artificial wombs and even male carriers, for example). But more to the point, he pointed out that AFTER the baby has been born; these programs continue to administer aid to children of incarcerated mothers but NOT to children of incarcerated fathers. Again, one of the judges brought up the fact that there were no specific examples of male applicants for such programs that had been turned away, and thus there was a lack of male litigants who had standing. Angelucci said that based upon the vastly larger number of male inmates, there was bound to be a significant number (perhaps equal, if not a greater amount) of fathers who could be attempting to apply right now, but are being turned away. The one judge even insinuated that there was no way that we can assume that there was even a single father who had applied and was turned away due to gender discrimination -- an obviously absurd notion. But you have to understand these judges -- appellate judges love to pose "devil's advocate" questions all the time, and they were clearly having a go of it. Angelucci pointed out that even if we have no evidence that even one such father has applied but was denied, having been victimized by this discriminatory policy -- even without any names to point to -- the State had not provided evidence that the number of male applicants to such a program was zero. And again, with the disproportionate number of incarcerated males vs. females, Marc pressed that there was bound to be a significant number of male applicants who were being denied equal protection under the law. When the opposing counsel offered his rebuttal, the judges changed their tune and asked him why it is so preposterous that there might be some (if not a significant amount) male applicants to this program. The opposing counsel suggested that the real issue is that the lawmakers who created the discriminatory policy saw that incarcerated mothers needed help for their children, while incarcerated fathers did not, and hence the discrimination was justified since it had the legislature's blessing. Angelucci pointed out that the court has oversight over the laws passed by the legislature, which was the very reason why we were in the court that day.

It was clear that between the State's attorney and Angelucci, Angelucci had the greater moral authority between the two, was more well spoken, and had powerful legal arguments to justify his position.

After the court adjourned, I and most of the other male advocates in attendance all went to lunch and discussed the case. Marc felt that he had much more to say, including elucidating the stories of specific individuals who had been hurt by the state's policy denying funding to male DV victims. He wasn't allowed the time. And yet, when the chief justice told Marc that his time was up (he only had 7 minutes for his final remarks), it seemed clear that the justices had made up their minds or at least understood the issue clearly enough so as to decide without the need for further persuasion. The chief justice even showed a little terseness to the State's attorney when it appeared that the State's attorney seemed to be splitting hairs over the political legitimacy of discriminating based on gender; I believe that this is because Angelucci had made an analogy that asked, "How would it look if most beneficiaries of a government program were whites, and the fact that a minority of blacks WERE a minority was considered justification for prohibiting the blacks from having access to the same program?" That seemed to resonate with the black chief justice. Angelucci also had pointed out that men suffer over 90 percent of workplace injuries; should women them be denied access to workers compensation injury benefits simply because they suffer fewer injuries than men? I believe that this point resonated with the female justice on the panel.

During lunch, Angelucci said that he anticipated a ruling being handed down by the court within about 60 days. He indicated that if the ruling is in our favor, it would have national ramifications and that if the ruling was not in our favor, he would take it to the California Supreme Court, and if unsuccessful there, would take the case into federal court and keep escalating it. He said that he felt that he was in his element, arguing the case in front of these justices -- and based on what I observed, I believe that he is right.

Let's keep our fingers crossed! A favorable ruling in this state of 37 million people will have far-reaching ramifications -- not just for California, but also far beyond.”