Welcome
My name is Ryan Alvar. I am a father fighting not just for my own children, but for every parent and child caught in a broken family court system.
On July 7, 2025, I filed a federal civil rights complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. This case exposes how unconstitutional practices in family court have destroyed my family, silenced my voice, and traumatized my children.
This website is where I share my story, the evidence, and my mission to reform a system that too often protects abusers and punishes protective parents.
Why I’m Speaking Out
My two youngest children, Declan and Sloane, were taken from me after false allegations were made.
Even after I was found to be a fit parent in court, I still do not have custody.
Here’s the truth: most parents eventually give up. Not because they don’t love their children, but because the system is designed to break them. I wouldn’t have understood this myself if I hadn’t lived it.
The financial cost is staggering. When this happens, fathers are often removed from their homes. They must find new housing for themselves, continue to support their family and their children’s housing, and pay enormous legal fees just to fight for their families. If they fall behind, it can become impossible to catch up, locking them into a cycle of debt, punishment, and despair.
Is that justice? I don’t think so. I always thought our law protected us. I was naive. The truth is: you can be 100% legally right, and if you don’t have the means in court, you can lose. On the flip side, you can be 100% legally wrong, but if you have the money, you can win. How is this justice? It is not.
You would not believe the stories I’ve heard. I’ve spoken to Minnesota fathers who have fought for their children for years, spending over $100,000 simply because they could afford it. In one case, the state finally discovered the mother was unsafe, and the children were placed in foster care before finally being given to the father. Since then, he has raised his children successfully.
Think about that. While a fit father was fighting for his children, the state realized he was right. But instead of immediately placing the children with him — their own father — they chose foster care. Only later did he win custody. Today, his children are thriving under his care.
Doesn’t that prove what this state will do to a fit parent? They did this specifically to him because he was not married to the children’s mother. He was their father just the same, but because they were unwed, the state treated him as if he didn’t exist.
The Federal Complaint
So far, my case names 23 defendants — and more are being added. These include:
-
The State of Minnesota
-
The City of Duluth
-
The City of Superior
-
St. Louis County
-
Douglas County
-
Six judges
-
Attorneys and government-funded organizations
This is not just about me. My case challenges:
-
False allegations and perjury in court
-
Parental alienation and coaching of children
-
Bias against fathers
-
Mental health and untreated trauma (gender neutral — it affects children whether it comes from mother or father)
-
Due process violations in custody and OFP cases
Judicial Immunity and Why This Case Matters
Normally, you cannot challenge judges or courtroom actors in court — they are shielded by judicial immunity, a doctrine that gives them unlimited discretion with no accountability. They can ignore evidence, silence parents, and even violate constitutional rights, and the law protects them.
That means, in practice, democracy and due process mean nothing inside family court.
But this case is different. Because of the expanse of the misconduct and the overwhelming evidence, my federal civil rights suit proves civil conspiracy. That allows these judges and courtroom actors to be tried under federal law.
That is why this case is so important — it has the potential to be one of the first cases in the nation to pierce judicial immunity and hold judges accountable for enabling child abuse and violating constitutional rights.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 / § 1985 —
Why they exist, what they let us do, and how they fit this case
Where § 1983 came from (plain English).
Congress passed § 1983 in 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act (the Ku Klux Klan Act) because of what was happening in the post-Civil War Southern states: organized terror (night-riding, lynchings, voter intimidation), sheriffs and deputies looking the other way—or joining in, and state judges refusing to protect victims, dismissing suits, blocking prosecutions, or running sham proceedings. When the local system was the problem, Congress opened the federal courthouse to ordinary people whose federal rights were violated “under color of” state law.
What § 1983 lets us do.
-
Sue state actors (officials, court-appointed actors) and private parties acting jointly with them for violating the Constitution (speech, due process, equal protection, unreasonable searches, etc.).
-
Hold cities and counties liable when a policy or custom caused the harm (Monell liability).
-
Obtain damages, declaratory judgments, and injunctions, plus attorney’s fees (§ 1988).
-
Immunity isn’t unlimited:
-
Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts, not for non-judicial acts or acts in the clear absence of jurisdiction; prospective relief can still be available in defined circumstances.
-
Quasi-judicial actors (e.g., GALs) have limited, function-based protections; they do not cover retaliatory, administrative, or advocacy conduct outside that role.
-
Municipalities have no absolute immunity.
-
Private parties who conspire with state actors can be treated as state actors and face § 1983 liability (and, separately, § 1985).
Where § 1985 fits (and how it ties to § 1983).
-
42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) targets conspiracies to obstruct justice (e.g., intimidating parties/witnesses).
-
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) targets conspiracies to deprive equal protection or equal privileges and immunities.
-
In practice, § 1983 is the vehicle for the constitutional violation; § 1985 pleads the agreement/coordination among actors to make it happen. My complaint pleads exactly that: a coordinated civil-rights conspiracy crossing judges, quasi-state officials, municipal actors, and private attorneys.
Why this isn’t just “judicial discretion.”
This case does not complain about mere “discretion.” It alleges non-judicial conduct, joint action with private parties, and policy-driven deprivations—the precise misconduct § 1983/§ 1985 were designed to reach.
How this section reflects my complaint (added specifics).
-
Speech gag & contempt over a GAL report declared “confidential” without legal basis, while that same report sits publicly in the state docket; jailing a parent for hosting what the state itself filed publicly is selective enforcement and a First/Fourteenth Amendment problem.
-
Ex parte OFP granted on statements contradicted by records, removing a fit parent from his home/children without meaningful scrutiny.
-
Unauthorized computer access (Dropbox) documented by police; no protection for the victim parent while other minor issues were aggressively pursued.
-
Child-support rulings that relied on incorrect financial records and illegally obtained materials, with a due-process motion not addressed.
-
Parental-alienation evidence observed by staff/police/state actors was ignored or excused; retaliation followed after speaking out.
-
DAIP recording reversal after visits documented trauma, blocking preservation of evidence; Safe Haven sat at counsel table lending institutional credibility without verification; Justice North and private counsel pursued retaliatory contempt and relied on unlawfully obtained materials.
Minnesota law the state ignored (my legal-parent baseline).
-
I am a legal parent via Recognition of Parentage (Minn. Stat. § 257.75).
-
Minnesota’s best-interests/parental-rights provisions (e.g., Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subds. 3 & 3a) recognize a legal parent’s rights to participate in decisions and access records.
-
I was found to be a fit parent on October 23, 2024, yet I have been without my children for over a year—a core Fourteenth Amendment due-process/equal-protection grievance backed by state-law baselines the system disregarded.
Why Fathers Are at Risk
Custody loss creates a perfect storm:
-
Isolation: A father loses daily contact with his children, often cutting him off from the core of his identity.
-
Financial Burden: He may be forced to move out, support two households, pay child support, and cover massive legal bills—while still trying to survive. If he falls behind, it can become impossible to catch up, locking him into a cycle of debt, punishment, and despair.
-
Hopelessness: Courts often make fathers feel powerless, reinforcing a belief that no matter what evidence they provide, they cannot win. My case proves this so far: even with overwhelming evidence, truth has been ignored.
-
Stigma: Society often frames the answer as “men need therapy,” but the real issue is that they should never have been put in this situation in the first place. If the system didn’t strip fit fathers from their children, some men wouldn’t be driven into despair, substance abuse, or the need for mental health intervention to survive.
The Hidden Crisis: Fathers, Custody Loss, and Mental Health
When a father loses custody of his children, the emotional and psychological toll can be devastating. Unlike divorce where both parents may remain involved, custody loss often means a father’s identity, purpose, and daily relationship with his children is ripped away.
-
Substance Abuse & Custody Loss – A U.S. study found custody loss is linked to higher drug use and criminal risk.
-
Divorce, Separation, and Suicide Risk – In the U.S., divorced or separated men die by suicide at rates up to 9 times higher than women in the same situation. That speaks volumes — the situation is the same, but the impact is drastically different. It shows who most likely suffers through these times.
-
Family Disruption as a Suicide Trigger – Large-scale U.S. suicide data confirms men who experienced family-related disruptions (like losing custody) were far more likely to die by suicide.
This is not just an American problem. In Australia, separated men are six times more likely to take their own lives than married men. In the U.K., about 20% of middle-aged male suicides are tied to family breakdown.
This is a global crisis. Fathers are suffering in silence, and children are paying the price.
Parental Alienation: The Overlooked Child Abuse
Parental alienation is when one parent uses words, actions, or manipulation to turn a child against the other parent. It can come from either parent — mother or father — and it is one of the most common forms of child abuse in custody disputes.
Mental health is at the very center of parental alienation. A healthy parent does not need to coach, pressure, or weaponize their child. Alienation almost always stems from untreated trauma, personality disorders, or unresolved mental health problems.
In my case, Declan and Sloane have shown clear signs of alienation. They have repeated coached statements, displayed fear that wasn’t theirs, and acted in ways that staff, law enforcement, and state actors directly witnessed. Instead of protecting the children, the state ignored these warning signs — or worse, made excuses for them.
Parental alienation is not hidden; it is one of the most easily recognized forms of child abuse. And yet, government actors in my case — guardians ad litem, visitation centers, judges — looked the other way.
I’ve also spoken with many mothers who’ve experienced the same thing—children alienated from them by an unfit father struggling with untreated mental health issues. The pattern is identical: kids are coached and weaponized in court and in daily life, used as leverage in a legal game instead of being protected and loved by both parents.
Parental alienation destroys families, cuts children off from stability, and passes trauma into the next generation. The government knows this, and still allows it to continue.
False Allegations: A Legal Weapon
Alongside alienation, false allegations have become a routine weapon in custody disputes. Courts treat them as part of the “game,” because there is no punishment for lying under oath in family court.
-
Dr. Donald Dutton’s research and other studies confirm that false allegations are common in custody cases. Estimates range from 25% to 50% of custody cases involving some form of false allegation.
-
A Canadian government study found that in over half of custody cases where abuse was alleged, the claims were unsubstantiated.
-
U.S. studies show that in up to 70% of contested custody cases, allegations of abuse surface, but many cannot be proven and are later shown to be fabricated or exaggerated.
Despite these numbers, there is no accountability. Parents who make false allegations face no consequences. No fines. No perjury charges. Nothing. That is why false allegations have become an acceptable tool of strategy in custody litigation — because the government allows it.
My case proves it: allegations that have been shown false in court records, police reports, and even the words of my children themselves, yet they are still used as weapons against me. The state lets it happen.
The Legal Industry’s Role
It isn’t just the government that allows false allegations and parental alienation to continue. Our own network of attorneys go along with it every single day.
If you speak to any family law attorney in private, they will tell you how bad the system is — how false allegations are routine, how children are weaponized, and how parental alienation is ignored. Yet these are the very professionals who see it up close in every case, and they do nothing to stop it.
Instead, they treat it as part of the game. A respected profession is blatantly part of these abuses, and most attorneys play along because it benefits them. Why would they want to change the status quo when doing so would hurt their bottom line? Healthier families and safer children would mean fewer cases and less money for the profession.
Most attorneys know that many of these allegations are false, yet they fight hard in court to win without evidence — sometimes using nothing more than one party’s word against mountains of proof to the contrary. And even when their false claims are exposed, and it’s proven no abuse occurred, there are no repercussions for them.
So why would they change course? The incentives are clear: keeping the system broken keeps the money flowing. Families, children, and truth are the collateral damage.
The Duluth Model: A Failed Legacy
It is no coincidence that this case is based in Duluth, Minnesota — the birthplace of the Duluth Model, the domestic violence framework that has shaped policy worldwide since the 1980s.
The Duluth Model is built around the Power and Control Wheel, a theory that assumes:
-
Men are always the abusers
-
Women are always the victims
This one-sided approach ignores reality. It dismisses mental health, substance abuse, coercive false allegations, and the fact that women can and do commit abuse.
Over the past four decades, the Duluth Model’s ideology has shaped domestic violence policy across the world. It has influenced:
-
Family courts and custody laws
-
Judges and how they evaluate evidence
-
Law enforcement training
-
Government-funded advocacy groups
-
Global policy adoption in countries from the U.S. to the U.K., Canada, Australia, and beyond
Counterpoint – Dr. Dutton’s Scholarship: In Rethinking Domestic Violence, Dr. Donald Dutton demonstrates that domestic violence is not one-dimensional. It is often reciprocal, situational, and rooted in untreated trauma or personality disorders — not simply “male power and control.” (See Expert Support below for the book link.)
Other nations who once relied on the Duluth Model — including the UK and New Zealand — have acknowledged its flaws and begun moving away from it.
Yet here in Minnesota, and across the United States, its ideology still drives policy, training, and family court decisions nationwide.
And now, at the very place it began, this case shines a light on how the Duluth Model’s bias has destroyed families, traumatized children, and silenced fathers.
This is where reform must start — by dismantling failed ideologies that put dogma over truth.
Expert Support
Dr. Donald Dutton
One of the greatest assets in this fight is Dr. Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Dutton is a world-renowned expert on domestic violence, false allegations, and coercive control.
Over more than four decades, his research has shaped policy, training, and court decisions worldwide. He has testified in some of the most high-profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson trial, and his work is cited by courts and scholars across the globe.
I first made contact with Dr. Dutton after reading his groundbreaking book, Rethinking Domestic Violence. In it, he exposes how mainstream policies — especially the Duluth Model — fail families by assuming that men are always the abuser and women always the victim. He explains that domestic violence is often reciprocal, driven by unresolved trauma and mental health issues, and cannot be solved by ideology alone.
👉 Learn more about the book:
Rethinking Domestic Violence – Dr. Donald Dutton
https://drdondutton.com/portfolio/rethinking-domestic-violence/
Dr. Dutton has also written several other books, published many peer-reviewed research, and given public lectures and interviews — many available online, including on YouTube — for those who want to understand more about false allegations, coercive control, and the misuse of domestic violence policy it's not hard to find his work.
When I brought him my federal case, he said what really got him interested was the fact that it is a federal civil rights complaint. For years, he had been asking: “Why doesn’t somebody do this?” — and now, that question has finally been answered.
Dr. Dutton’s voice brings international credibility and authority to this fight. His involvement makes clear that this is not just one man’s custody battle, but a globally recognized struggle for truth, justice, and reform that is long overdue.
Recent Updates
-
July 7, 2025 – Filed federal complaint in Minneapolis, MN
-
July 10, 2025 – Motion for Temporary Custody (hearing pushed to September 4)
-
July 14, 2025 – Arrested and jailed for sharing the Guardian ad Litem report on my website → filed a federal motion for restraining order against the State of Minnesota
-
July 21, 2025 – Motion to remove GAL also pushed to September 4
-
September 4, 2025 – Upcoming state court hearing:
-
Motion for Temporary Custody
-
Motion to Remove the Guardian ad Litem
-
Motion for Stay of Child Support (court ruled before addressing properly filed motion, including incorrect financial records admitted in hearing and fraud upon the court)
-
Motion for Contempt against Amy Schmidt for blocking court-ordered visitation
-
September 10, 2025 – First federal hearing: the State of Minnesota is seeking to seal the Guardian ad Litem report within the exhibit in the federal filing.
The truth is simple: the State of Minnesota cannot arbitrarily prevent a legal parent from sharing a court document that proves trauma against his children. There is no law against sharing this report, and nothing contained in it is confidential. Even if there were, a legal parent has the constitutional right to provide it to the public to support reform and protect their children.
By shielding this evidence and jailing me, the State of Minnesota has proven they care more about punishing a protective parent than preventing child abuse. They are also clearly trying to hide their actions, because this document proves my case against them. It is one of many, but a critical one.
The opposing counsel who sought contempt charges and the court that upheld them are the same ones who filed this very report publicly — and it remains available for public viewing today. This selective enforcement matters because it goes to the heart of equal protection and fairness. It is proof of systemic bias, and it is one reason I will win in federal court.
The Family Impact
No child should lose contact with their siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins because of government obstruction. Yet that is exactly what has happened here.
Declan and Sloane have been cut off not only from me, but also from their older siblings, Haven and William, who once had a strong, loving bond with them. They have been separated from grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins who were a regular and supportive part of their lives.
This issue is bigger than custody. It is about the right of children to maintain their most important relationships, and the right of families to stay connected. That is why grandparents and extended family members come to me asking for help — because they too are victims of a system that disregards family unity.
Unless we change course, this will continue happening to families across Minnesota and across the country.
Why Mental Health Matters
I have seen first-hand what poor mental health can do, and I have seen the trauma it has caused my children. Every day, the headlines show us what happens when mental health is ignored — tragedies, violence, broken families. The response is always the same: “We didn’t know” or “There were no signs.”
Meanwhile, government spends millions telling us: “If you see something, say something.” But when a parent like me saw the signs, spoke up, and tried to protect his very young children, the system turned its back.
In court, I was told by the judge that “mental health has nothing to do with this case.”
I have lived it — and I can tell you the truth: mental health has everything to do with this case, and with most of the crises facing our nation today. If we keep ignoring it, we keep passing trauma down to the next generation.
Imagine a future where children grow up free of trauma. A future where they don’t know fear or pain, where they thrive, and where they pass that stability and success on to their own children. That future is possible — but only if we stop, change course, and face mental health as the priority it must be.
That is what this fight is doing.
What the World Already Saw in Depp v. Heard
Many of you followed the Depp v. Heard trial. That case proved what people are capable of when trauma and underlying mental health issues are left unchecked. This case is exactly the same — but with two young children caught in the middle.
That trial received enormous publicity because of the celebrity names. But in truth, there was nothing unusual about it. The same battles — false allegations, credibility wars, untreated trauma — play out in our courts every single day. The only difference is that when the names are not famous, no one pays attention.
The Depp v. Heard case cannot create reform. It was a private dispute between two individuals in state court. At best, it serves as an example of the issue. But my case goes further.
My federal case is not against a lone private actor. It includes every government actor involved, up to and including the State of Minnesota itself, as defendants in federal court. That is why this case matters. Because when the government is held accountable in federal court, it does not just expose the problem — it forces change nationwide.
The Power of Federal Litigation
Because this is a federal civil rights complaint, a victory here does not stop with my family. Winning this case forces reform nationwide. It establishes precedent that can be used across state lines, giving every family in this country the ability to challenge broken systems that have gone unchecked for decades.
For nearly 50 years, parents have cried out for change but lacked the evidence and legal foundation to bring the fight to the federal level. That has now changed. My case has the potential to do what no case has done before: hold government actors accountable for violating due process and constitutional rights in family court.
Stand With Me
The Time to Act is Now
This is not just a lawsuit. This is the beginning of systemic reform. Our judicial system needs to change. Our laws need to be updated. Our children need to be protected.
This fight is not only about Minnesota — it is about every family in America. The system is broken nationwide, and unless we stand together now, it will continue to destroy families in silence.
With your help, we can start reform today — in our neighborhoods, in our legislatures, and in our courts.
Winning this case will bring national change. But beginning reform work now will ensure families everywhere benefit from the truth coming to light.
This fight is real. It matters to every parent, every child, and every family in this country.
👉 You can read the federal complaint here: Ryan Alvar v State of Minnesota et al.pdf
Real Dad Initiative — Equal Custody for Legal Fathers
The Real Dad Initiative is my blueprint to fix the gap that’s breaking families. In Minnesota (and many other states), an unmarried father who signs a Recognition of Parentage (ROP) is a legal parent—he can be pursued for child support and has other legal duties—but he does not automatically have custody. That mismatch lets systems sideline fit fathers and separate children from a loving parent.
👉 You can read the Real Dad Initiative here: https://www.ryanalvar.com/real-dad
👉 Support this fight directly through my GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/59323e16
I ask for your support by:
-
Sharing this story far and wide to shine a light on the truth
-
Following my updates on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/ryan.alvar.536169/
-
Considering a donation to help fund this fight
Together, we can protect children, restore fairness, and rebuild our judicial system.
Respectfully,
Ryan William Alvar
Pro Se Parent and Plaintiff
⚖️ “Justice is not justice when it ignores truth. I fight because my children deserve better — and so do yours.”
