My simple but constant plea to divorce practitioners and policymakers, a mantra, is that we adopt a new standard in the legal determination of parenting after divorce: the “best interests of the child from the perspective of the child,” to replace the current discretionary approach based on speculation and interpretation; and a “responsibility to needs-based” orientation, to replace the dominant “rights-based” approach. A paradigm shift is needed: the well-being of children as they define it must take precedence over judicial biases and preferences, professional self-interest, gender politics, the desire of a parent to remove the other from the child’s life, and the wishes of a parent who is found to be a danger to the child.
What this implies is that first of all we adopt an evidence-based approach derived from research asking children themselves about their needs in the divorce transition, and then taking responsibility to reform our laws and public policies to address those needs. By “we” I refer mainly to those of us in the human services field working within social institutions that are meant to serve children and parents, but also to the community at large. Most simply stated, it is the responsibility of social institutions to support parents in the fulfillment of their parenting responsibilities to their children’s needs.
It has been only during the past decade that researchers have made beginning efforts to listen directly to the voices of children of divorce (and also parents) about their physical, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual needs. The picture that has emerged is dramatically different to previous studies based on “expert” interpretations. 
I will not enumerate these needs, as it is the focus of my book, along with a proposal for a new “equal parenting” approach to parenting after divorce based on what children themselves have identified as their core needs. Instead I would like to provide a platform for the voice of one child of divorce, Aimee Nicholls from England. She writes about her forced estrangement from her father, but might just as easily have been referring to her mother, as judicial gender stereotypes also devalue mothers who do not conform to judges’ views of “appropriate” parental behavior. Here are selected excerpts from her message to parliamentarians, and the public, about the effects of divorce on children, and particularly the damaging effects of misguided child and family policies and practices: 
“Hi there, my name is Aimee Nicholls, I’m 16 years old, and 11 years ago, my parents divorced. It doesn’t matter why right now, that’s history… It’s certainly not something that I wanted, but I also had no say... I do love my mom and dad both the same… My dad shared my care before my parents split.
Despite what people want you to think, I’ve learned that family law… works exactly how it was designed to work... It makes more money for everyone working in family law, and my situation is only partly resolved after 11 years of fighting... The system doesn’t like giving up, unless you’re one of the few families it allows to be different to “prove” that it’s fair. It clearly isn’t fair.
When I voted with my feet at age 15 to go live with my dad again, a family court judge, like all of the other ones before tried to force me to go back to my mum. And he told me I was too young to express my views to him… He said he needed social services to tell him what my views were. Think about that. I was sat in a court room at the age of almost 16, in front of him, and he effectively stuck his fingers in his ears and sang la la la. He ignored that I said that I felt at risk, probably because risk never really comes into it, unless it can be pointed at a dad to split him and his child up. More delay, more work for the system, more income, more funding. That’s what it’s all about. If you need a good reason to open up the secret family courts to the public, this is one. I bet the judge would not have dared say any of that to me if there were people watching. I was almost an adult, and I understood exactly what he was doing. His game of pretending to not be able to hear my voice was really disheartening.
It was horrible. Why would I want to go back to social services who had always misled the court about my views? They make it their job to lie, and to twist things, and this judge was just giving them another chance to do that. After 11 years of being involved, I would say it’s worse than it’s ever been at this point, right now, for kids... Ever since I started speaking out, I’ve heard from hundreds of families, and it’s always the same thing. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. For the politicians watching, the ones that want to believe all the lies; wake up. It’s worse than it’s ever been, and it’s happening on your watch. For example, the courts are still trying to ruin things for me and my dad. They stripped him of all his income, so that he can’t care for me. If they can’t force me to live with my mum, they’re just going to ruin it for me and my dad. That’s fine now, it’s fine for me, I go out and work, I’m 16. But why should we not just be left to live peacefully after all of this... Not every other kid my age is like me. They don’t speak out. More should, but they don’t. And that’s why the system can carry on…
First of all, judges. I say judges (plural), not just one, because my family has been through a lot of different courts and different judges, and they all say the same thing. That’s not a coincidence. The only way that could happen is if the system is set up that way, and it’s set up wrong. I saw it myself when I made my own application at 15. The application doesn’t even cater for someone like a child… the judge just slapped me down and ignored everything I said... The judge just couldn’t care less, because it’s not what he’s used to doing, and he’s not meant to do that (i.e., he is meant to put me, the child, first).
Next, there’s teachers and school counsellors that I talked to numerous times when I was in school... Later they told social workers that I had never indicated a problem, or expressed my views. They are probably all still in their jobs abusing kids just like me.
Next, there’s the (family court) expert witness that made my dad sound like he was some kind of psychopath. Clearly he isn’t, but that doesn’t matter. This guy took a huge fee and wrote some rubbish to ensure that my sister and I would be kept from seeing my dad. And he’s still out there as well, destroying families, taking his large fees. I hope he’s enjoying the money that he got from destroying my life, and my sister’s life. She’s seven...
And, lastly, a very special mention for the (child welfare officer) who did everything in her power to keep me from my dad. From lying in the reports, to “losing” my wishes and feelings report… Also, repeated interviews which were not meant to happen. With increasing pressure until I told her that I wanted to live with my mum. I guess she’s still out there as well, destroying other children’s lives.
The system is completely broken. Almost everyone working in the system has some vested interest in what’s going on, and they’re making it worse. If it’s not money and work, it’s politics... The whole secrecy thing, it just makes it a 100 times worse. I personally think that would be one of the main things that would resolve this. Family law, and the courts, and social services and (child welfare officers) all just have too much money, and they use it to put pressure on the government to continue doing what they do. Nobody else’s voice gets heard. Politicians just need to stop this, and not in a few months, or two years, or a few weeks even. They need to do it now…
I want us all to be together, why can’t that happen? There’s no reason for that not to happen. You should explain it to me and my sister in a way that makes sense to us, because all we know is that we love each other, and we love our dad, and some pensioner in buckle shoes and a wig keeps telling us that it’s not in our best interest. I think family law is not in my best interest. And I think it’s time for it to go.
I’m Aimee Nicholls. Thank you for listening. Now go out and do something about it.”
Kruk, E. (2013). The Equal Parent Presumption: Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."