A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
A Mother's Day message from Dr. Mark Roseman of The Toby Center.
For an increasing number of moms, Mother’s Day without their children are expected, and characteristic. It’s characteristic of mothers who are court ordered to have visitation that they not see their children on this day. For dads, too, there are many whose children cannot spend time with their them.
Why? Court orders.
Court orders in Family Court, especially require parents to have a shared parenting plan, a plan which delineates when each parent may spend quality time with their children. Not because of social media, and cell phone compulsions. It is because when they separate and divorce, children’s time is allocated. Like any commodity. Litigation is used to advocate for a parent’s time; litigation is used to prevent a parent’s time. Consider: Thirty percent of parents who separate are very unhappy, angry, and vindictive. They seek to punish each other, or at least to claim themselves a victim of anything that will deprive the other parent of significant quality time with their children. Such parents are considered to be in ‘high conflict’ and seek to blame, deny, and often, to run away with the children.
Litigation damages many among these families, for there remains not enough opportunity for children to spend time with their parents, particularly, when their parents need to pay for shared parenting time that must besupervised. Supervised visitation is used by the courts when the judge believes there needs to be a neutral third party to observe, and guard against emotional and physical abuse.
But supervised visitation works when the custodial parent does not interfere with the child’s scheduled visitation. As Toby Center’s Program Director, I have seen this happen over thirty percent of the time. We can’t enforce visitation for those who may even have money to pay for this service.
Who can afford these unfunded services? Well, 40 percent of those asking for these services in Central Florida cannot. In South Florida, 30 percent cannot. Supervised visitation services are little funded in Florida. Florida’s funds come from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through their office of Child Support Enforcement. These monies are to be used by states for furthering supervised visitation and family mediation. These are cases found in the Family Courts.
Yet, in Florida, these monies are used solely and entirely by the Department of Children and Familiesthrough thirdparty case management companies. Though DCF client families benefit from funded services as visitation and therapy, even more significant are the needs of families whose child custody cases are heard in Family Court. In the latter case, such families did not have their children removed from their homes. Even though the reasons for family court action may be quite the same or similar to some in Dependency Court.
I have served in this field since 1999 when I began working in Washington, DC with the national Children’s Rights Council. Then, it was David L. Levy, Esq. who emerged the loudest advocate for joint custody, and established the largest network of supervised visitation locations. I was appointed by David to be the Assistant Director for Child Access. In charge of visitation curriculum and training, I joined David on numerous visits to the Office of Child Support Enforcement, meeting two Directors of CSE during the Bush Administrations.
Indeed, it was David Levy who challenged the Federal Government during the Clinton Administration to allocate money for families journeying through very costly child custody matters in Family Court. With his successful testimony on Capitol Hill (and he was a wonderful, passionate orator of my time!), David created this annual earmark so that more families would not be denied the visitation services so essential for building and strengthening parent and child relations.
Social research has shown that children best thrive when both parents are involved in their children’s lives. It is therefore incumbent upon grantors and state agencies to find the money to preserve our families post separation. If we do, then we will reduce the rate of alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile crime, teen suicide.
Mother’s Day. Father’s Day.
For the forty percent of public school children living in single parent households, nearly half of our families today, family holidays just ‘ain’t what they used to be’. But with more funds, and support, they come close.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights, including it among those rights deemed fundamental. As a fundamental right, parental liberty is to be protected by the highest standard of review: the compelling interest test. As can be seen from the cases described above, parental rights have reached their highest level of protection in over 75 years. The Court decisively confirmed these rights in the recent case of Troxel v. Granville, which should serve to maintain and protect parental rights for many years to come.
As long as CPS is allowed to have an exaggerated view of their power and is allowed by state officials and the courts to exploit that power and abuse it against both children and parents, they will both be continually harmed. The constitution is there for two primary reasons, 1) to restrict the power of the government and 2) to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people. And the constitution is there to prohibit certain activity from government officials and that prohibition does not apply to one type or kind of official but to ANY government official whether it is the police, CPS or FBI.
“More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than in all other court systems in America combined – over $50 billion a year and growing. Through extensive research and interviews with the nation’s top divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists, DIVORCE CORP. uncovers how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play god with people’s lives while enriching their friends. This explosive documentary reveals the family courts as unregulated, extra-constitutional freedoms. Rather than assist victims of domestic crimes, these courts often precipitate them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts – and their associates – drag out cases for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills, including home foreclosure, bankruptcy, suicide and violence. Solutions to the crisis are sought out in countries where divorce is handled in a more holistic manner.Continue reading
OPINION: The essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, "Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it". For a long time, critics said much the same about the Family Court – but now political change is in the wind. A recently announced Government plan to review how the Family Court operates will be a significant test of how those involved in sorting out the affairs of other people are able to address our own challenges, not least how mediators might help ease the strain on a system that is becoming overwhelmingly costly. The review, signalled last month by Justice Minister Simon Power, will look at ways to improve the court and ensure that its processes are straightforward. This matter could hardly be less academic. Anecdotal observation, case histories and virtually all the relevant research point to the fact that troubled break-ups adversely affect kids, not to mention their parents, which in turn has an effect on the wider community. Principal Family Court judge Peter Boshier recently told the Law Society that improving the existing system offers children involved in cases the court has yet to consider the best chance of growing up to be functional adults. With the looming social cost in mind, Judge Boshier has called for the inquisitorial, rather than the adversarial, approach to be used in cases involving kids. As much as any potential social cost, however, the coming review is also about financial cost. Announcing the review, Mr Power said the Government's intention is to look at how "a piecemeal approach to family law reform has impacted on the efficiency of the court, as well as ensuring it is sustainable, cost-effective and responsive to the needs to those who use it and the taxpayers who pay for it". The Government is alarmed over an annual bill that has blown out from $83.9m in 2004-05, to $137.1m in the past year for which figures are available. Whatever the ultimate outcome of the current deliberations, the country's mediators – and here we're talking about credentialed and experienced practitioners, properly trained neutral parties who assist in negotiations and conflict resolutions – have an enormous role to play. All the more so if they are brought into the process well before the start of any court action. Mediation, after all, has the capacity to empower families to reach their own confidential agreements for their own children's futures. People choose their own mediator, discuss the issues that are relevant to them, and have as much say as possible. And mediation is speedy.What's more, mediation in any event can significantly lessen the state's financial cost of families pursuing litigation. And it works. According to one British agency involved in the area, 80 per cent of all cases that enter mediation are settled, a figure that contrasts shiningly when viewed against the litigation process that by its nature tends to be unpredictable, produces winners and losers and the remedy is blunt and offers limited solutions. With mediation one retains control of the process; with litigation, even the best cases are far from certain to succeed.
But mediation and juris-prudence are different things, with one of them holding a clear advantage when it comes to settling family disputes in the speediest, most cost-effective and enduring way. As one former American judge-turned-fulltime mediator, Michael Streit, put it in a newspaper interview this month while discussing the differences between the two activities: "You're more isolated as a judge because you have to stay above the fray. In mediation, you establish a trust and rapport with the parties and work them into a dialogue, so both sides are treated fairly. You find out what people want – what they need." Given its proven advantages, one of the most important questions that will need to be carefully considered in light of all this here in New Zealand is whether these mediators should be getting involved in the process only at the point where a warring couple walks through the court doors. Is it too much to hope that New Zealanders – and the Family Court that was set up to serve them in one of life's most delicate domestic situations – might yet be better served if one of the results of the coming review will be to allow mediators to do what they do best in the setting where they work best? Deborah Hart, LLB, is the executive director of the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand
OPINION: The essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, "Everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it".
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, critics said much the same about the Family Court – but now political change is in the wind.
A recently announced Government plan to review how the Family Court operates will be a significant test of how those involved in sorting out the affairs of other people are able to address our own challenges, not least how mediators might help ease the strain on a system that is becoming overwhelmingly costly.
The review, signalled last month by Justice Minister Simon Power, will look at ways to improve the court and ensure that its processes are straightforward. This matter could hardly be less academic. Anecdotal observation, case histories and virtually all the relevant research point to the fact that troubled break-ups adversely affect kids, not to mention their parents, which in turn has an effect on the wider community.
Principal Family Court judge Peter Boshier recently told the Law Society that improving the existing system offers children involved in cases the court has yet to consider the best chance of growing up to be functional adults.
With the looming social cost in mind, Judge Boshier has called for the inquisitorial, rather than the adversarial, approach to be used in cases involving kids.
As much as any potential social cost, however, the coming review is also about financial cost.
Announcing the review, Mr Power said the Government's intention is to look at how "a piecemeal approach to family law reform has impacted on the efficiency of the court, as well as ensuring it is sustainable, cost-effective and responsive to the needs to those who use it and the taxpayers who pay for it".
The Government is alarmed over an annual bill that has blown out from $83.9m in 2004-05, to $137.1m in the past year for which figures are available.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the current deliberations, the country's mediators – and here we're talking about credentialed and experienced practitioners, properly trained neutral parties who assist in negotiations and conflict resolutions – have an enormous role to play.
All the more so if they are brought into the process well before the start of any court action.
Mediation, after all, has the capacity to empower families to reach their own confidential agreements for their own children's futures. People choose their own mediator, discuss the issues that are relevant to them, and have as much say as possible. And mediation is speedy.What's more, mediation in any event can significantly lessen the state's financial cost of families pursuing litigation.
And it works. According to one British agency involved in the area, 80 per cent of all cases that enter mediation are settled, a figure that contrasts shiningly when viewed against the litigation process that by its nature tends to be unpredictable, produces winners and losers and the remedy is blunt and offers limited solutions.
With mediation one retains control of the process; with litigation, even the best cases are far from certain to succeed.
But mediation and juris-prudence are different things, with one of them holding a clear advantage when it comes to settling family disputes in the speediest, most cost-effective and enduring way.
DeleteAs one former American judge-turned-fulltime mediator, Michael Streit, put it in a newspaper interview this month while discussing the differences between the two activities: "You're more isolated as a judge because you have to stay above the fray. In mediation, you establish a trust and rapport with the parties and work them into a dialogue, so both sides are treated fairly. You find out what people want – what they need."
Given its proven advantages, one of the most important questions that will need to be carefully considered in light of all this here in New Zealand is whether these mediators should be getting involved in the process only at the point where a warring couple walks through the court doors.
Is it too much to hope that New Zealanders – and the Family Court that was set up to serve them in one of life's most delicate domestic situations – might yet be better served if one of the results of the coming review will be to allow mediators to do what they do best in the setting where they work best?
Deborah Hart, LLB, is the executive director of the Arbitrators' and Mediators' Institute of New Zealand