Apologies in advance for the long post.
I actually have some compassion for Ball. Reading that 'last statement' it seems obvious to me that the man had completely lost all grip on reality. I suspect that his MH problems probably began as a result of his military experience and was tipped over the edge by having the system he thought he was defending (when in service) suddenly hold him to account for his unacceptable behaviour towards his daughter. The fact that he took his life in such a violent manner is truly tragic.
However, while I feel compassion towards him, I find it disturbing that a platform is being given to someone with obvious MH difficulties who advocates such extreme violence.
His account is perception and opinion. It is not cold, hard facts. His statistical analysis is flawed in multiple ways, but even supposing it were true, what argument is that supposed to make? That families should stay together even in cases of domestic abuse because the alternative is poverty for everyone? If his argument had been that the state doesn't do enough to enable different family structures to support themselves and therefore needs to change - including making child support payments more reliable and perhaps suggesting insurance to cover periods of unemployment, it would make a lot more sense. But that's not what he was saying. Basically, he wants the state to keep out of family relationships and encourage people to stay together regardless of what goes on behind closed doors.
His use of language reflects male privilege and misogyny. He belittles his ex-wife's ability to think for herself and considers himself the king-pin for the family unit. He almost has a god complex, and there is a direct link there I feel with his later action of setting himself on fire. It's a shame the letter was not seen beforehand, as any decent human being reading it would have instantly recognised that this was a man who needed help; not a martyr for a righteous (
) cause.
The idea that the whole system is designed to screw his life up is tragically sad and attests to his state of mind. While there are many convincing arguments for why we should reform family law both in the UK and the US, the idea that the 'system' will fabricate problems with a father in order to make money is just so far out there I don't know where to start. They have enough real cases to contend with that they don't need to start making them up.
I suspect that given the incredibly strong correlation between domestic abuse and child abuse, and the fact that very few offences of either type are ever reported in the first instance, the professionals at MFS probably suspected that more was going on than the incident that brought the family to their attention in the first place. Whether or not that was the case, none of us know, but his refusal to co-operate speaks volumes, none of it favourably.
I can see how he descended into such a pit, but Ball moulded himself into a victim. Indeed, in some ways he was a victim - someone whose MH was spiralling so out of control yet no one noticed. But that victim mentality is not a healthy perception of reality.
I am not privy to the full details of the case, but his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions and his belligerence towards the system suggests to me that the judge may have suspected Ball was guilty of deliberately avoiding avoid paying child support.
A very quick google on Ball's case brought up this:
Seth Harp, a retired Georgia senator and former member of the state's Child Support Guidelines Commission told MSNBC.com that incarceration was used sparingly, and only really for people who are found in willful contempt.*
"You can't get blood out of a turnip, but you can put the turnip in the cooler," he said. "And in 34 years of doing this, it's amazing, you put someone in the cooler and the money seems to come."
Don't get me wrong - jailing someone who clearly does not have the means to pay but is willing to is wrong. That's an attack on the poor and not dissimilar in principle to the idea behind the Victorian debtor prisons. It's an issue that should be tackled but it is entirely separate to the question of family law and domestic violence. I can't see why someone's inability to pay means that the police should drop their policy to always arrest in cases of domestic abuse.
I'm concerned that a man who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to 'bloody' his daughter's mouth and advocate extreme violence against those who disagree with him is considered an appropriate figurehead for any sort of campaign. Let alone one that that argues that family law treat fathers unfairly. Any movement who lauds Ball as a hero for the cause rather than a tragic, disturbed individual clearly has ulterior motives and couldn't give a damn about children's rights or victims of domestic violence.