Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015
Complaint Filed Against Marin County Superior Court Family Law Judge Bev Wood & Court CEO Kim Turner for Evidence...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 20, 2015
DVLP efforts currently exist in the following states:
State-level groups advance through 4 steps to achieve full chapter status. Groups agree to follow the Ten Principles to Reform Domestic Violence Policies. For more information, contact dvlp@saveservices.org.MORE INFORMATION
1. Facebook
2. Policy Briefings
3. State Legislation
4. Campaign – working to raise candidates’ awareness of domestic violence issues
5. Previous Campaigns
In 2011, SAVE sponsored 105 radio interviews that reached an estimated 5.3 million radio listeners. Please support SAVE’s continuing efforts to get the truth out!
2. Policy Briefings
3. State Legislation
4. Campaign – working to raise candidates’ awareness of domestic violence issues
5. Previous Campaigns
In 2011, SAVE sponsored 105 radio interviews that reached an estimated 5.3 million radio listeners. Please support SAVE’s continuing efforts to get the truth out!
Women Against VAWA Excess – WAVE – is dedicated to exposing how the Violence Against Women Act has veered away from its original intended purpose to stop domestic violence. Now, VAWA has come to embrace a radical ideology that marginalizes true victims, harms families, and betrays the ideals of equality feminism.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization this year.
Despite its innocent-sounding name, the problem with VAWA is that it assails the family, the Constitution, and the economy. And it has failed to live up to its promises to help women – see:
Dear Friends of Children's Rights,
Senator Leahy and VAWA supporters are six co-sponsors short of avoiding a filibuster. They are close, but that doesn't mean they will succeed. Not if we get busy and make a few phone calls.
To see if your senators have co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) visit. Enter bill number S.1925.
 Tell them not to listen to the "If you're pro-women you're pro-VAWA" line. Remind them that women's groups like the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America have come out in opposition to VAWA. Or suggest they visit the Women Against VAWA Excess website to see what women really think about VAWA.
Have a few extra minutes? Call as many senators as possible who are not on the co-sponsor list.
We can do this, so let's get started...
Call your senators right now!
 |
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Honorable Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley:
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – is a victim advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence. We are writing in regard to the recent July 13, 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act.
To place this important issue in proper context, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has conducted two national surveys about intimate partner aggression:
• A survey of high school students found 10% of teenage girls had initiated dating violence, compared to only 9% of teenage boys. (I)
• A study of persons 18-28 years old concluded that females were the perpetrators in 70% of cases of one-way aggression. (II)
These government findings have been confirmed by over 250 scholarly investigations that show “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.” (III)
The problem of female-initiated domestic violence recently made front-page news with the recent California case in which a woman hideously drugged, bound, and castrated her husband. (IV)
Against this background of research and national news, Dr. Phillip McGraw (a.k.a. “Dr. Phil”) was invited to be the lead witness for the recent Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act. (V)
During the course of his testimony, Dr. McGraw repeatedly made statements that were one-sided, misleading, unverifiable, and/or demonstrably false:
1.) “2,000,000 women a year are victimized [by] being beaten, terrorized, and intimidated.” – This statement, based on research conducted by Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire, found equal numbers of men were also victimized by domestic violence. Why did Dr. McGraw choose to cherry-pick the research?
2.) “In too many situations violence against women, young and old, is almost treated as an ‘acceptable crime.’” This statement is misleading and false. Research shows the vast majority (nine out of 10) of Americans view wife-beating as unacceptable. (VI) (Ironically, two out of 10 of persons still view domestic violence against men as acceptable.)
3.) “Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44.” –This statement, which has been previously refuted by a leading family violence researcher, (VII) is a scurrilous misrepresentation of the facts. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control:
a.) In 1996, motor vehicle accidents and accidental falls were the leading causes of injury to women ages 15-44. Domestic violence ranked as the ninth cause of injury. (VIII)
b.) From 2004-2007, the leading causes of injury to women 15-24 years of age were falls, motor vehicle accidents, and overexertion, in that order. For women in the 25-44 year age group, the leading causes of injury were falls, overexertion, and motor vehicle accidents: (IX)
4.) "In fact, among teenage girls who are killed, nearly one-third is killed by a boyfriend or former boyfriend" – SAVE staff undertook an extensive search to locate the source of this statement, including the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports. The source could not be located. Therefore, we conclude this unverifiable claim is a “factoid from nowhere.”
5.) Through use of gender-biased examples and terminology (e.g., “women,” “mothers,” “girls,” etc.), Dr. McGraw painted a picture of domestic violence that is oblivious to three decades of research, which shows approximate symmetry in the perpetration of intimate partner aggression between men and women.
6.) Dr. McGraw’s testimony often relied on emotion-laden phraseology and photographic images that were designed to play on persons’ feelings and passions. In conclusion, Dr. McGraw’s testimony was systematically biased, scientifically deficient, and deeply flawed. His testimony is reminiscent of the Jim Crow rape scares that focused on black-on-white rape, while studiously ignoring the problem of white-onwhite sexual assault.
Effective policy-making rests on sound research and unbiased evidence. Dr. McGraw’s statements are reckless because they could serve to justify and promote federal abuse reduction policies that are ineffective, neglectful of civil rights, and even harmful.
SAVE’s report, Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness, documents how many claims by representatives of domestic violence organizations lack any basis in scientific fact. (X)
Ensuring the accuracy of domestic violence statements made to policymakers, the public, and criminal justice personnel should be an important public policy objective. We are therefore requesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee correct the numerous misleading, unverifiable, and erroneous statements of fact that permeate Dr. McGraw’s testimony. We furthermore request that the Judiciary Committee give consideration to the VAWA reauthorization including provisions to require third-party accreditation of all government-supported domestic violence training, education, and public awareness programs.
We look forward to working with you during the upcoming months to assure the prompt reauthorization and revitalization of the Violence Against Women Act.
Sincerely,
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849
Office: 301-801-0608
Cell: 301-670-1964
Email: ebartlett@saveservices.org
Internet:
Cc: All Members of the Senate
(I) HTTP://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5905a1.htm
(II) http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
(III) http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
(IV) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/catherine-kieu-becker-cut-off-husbandspenis_n_895771.html
(V) http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?Id=3d9031b47812de2592c3baeba61af68b&wit_id=3d9031b47812de2592c3baeba61af68b-1-1
(VI) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf
(VII) http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html
(VIII) http://www.responsibleopposing.com/facts/leadcaus.html
(IX) www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_241.pdf , Table 4.
(X) http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-DV-Educational-Programs
UPDATE
Senate Committee Passes VAWA Only on Party Vote (10-8).
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed VAWA on a party line vote, 10 Democrats in favor and 8 Republicans voting against. This was a good sign that VAWA is in trouble down the road when it comes up for votes in the Senate and House and good reason to continue to press Senators in your state to vote 'No' on VAWA.
We are continuing our efforts to repeal the Florida DV law and get the courts out of family life. Your can support our work here.
1. VAWA re-authorization uncertain.
1. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed the Judiciary Committee but only on a party line vote. This is quite likely the first time it did not have bi-partisan support and presents an opportunity for defeating VAWA in either the Senate or the House. Start contacting senators and representatives now and tell them why VAWA should not be re-authorized.
DV Laws should require a warrant before a domestic abuse order could be issued and restricts the ability of police to make arrests without one. However, the bill's provisions on 'domestic violence' warrants will die unless people speak up and make their voices heard.
Shared parenting efforts depend on reform and eventual repeal of these draconian 'domestic violence' laws.
It is imperative that people write the committee members (below) before next Monday, Feb. 6 and let them know how domestic abuse orders are issued without justification and the harm it causes to their family life and to their financial well-being.
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
The Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers
ReplyDeleteThe 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA), if passed, will provide funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.
The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.
The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.
We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.
For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.
The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood 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."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
OPINION: Lucrative divorce industry stands between divorced parents and kids
ReplyDeleteOne lawyer advocating against change billed $370,000 in one custody case.
I want to thank The Daily Republic and its staff this past legislative session for covering a very tough subject: kids’ right to as much time as possible with both parents in a divorce (i.e., shared parenting) in South Dakota.
While the bill failed again this year, we hope for continued support, because this issue isn’t going away. Our current standard placement model is keeping great parents and extended family out of our kids’ lives, and the laws are out of date and creating more problems than they solve.
What will it take to bring about change? That’s tough to answer, because the divorce industry has quite a stranglehold on the Legislature.
The State Bar Family Law Committee gives the recommendations for the visitation guidelines to the state Supreme Court. The people who should be giving these recommendations are not attorneys, but rather therapists, teachers, counselors and psychologists. Unfortunately, many noncustodial parents don’t have the money to fight these rulings made by these guidelines and many judges rule in accordance with the guidelines, because that’s what they believe the Supreme Court says is best.
Only five spoke out this year against the Kids Need Both Parents bill in committee: three attorneys, the State Bar and a domestic violence group. All of them stand to financially lose if parents are granted more equal time with their children in a divorce. The scare tactics of how terrible it would be to presume it is in a child’s best interest to have as much time as possible with both parents were atrocious, and at best were decades-old arguments that, across the nation, state by state, others are realizing couldn’t be further from the truth.
Rapid City attorney Linda Lea Viken, a member of the State Bar’s Family Law Commitee, was among those to testify against a rebuttable presumption of involving both parents equally at a time of divorce and said “the system works fine as it is.” Viken, in one custody case alone, billed more than $370,000 (Schieffer v. Schieffer) just this past year.
Why would someone who can make quite a living off conflict in a custody case thanks to our current adversarial system want anything to change? Very few parents who want equal and meaningful contact with their kids can afford $370,000.
Viken lost in Schieffer v. Schieffer, with the state Supreme Court apparently seeing the benefit of more equitable parenting time for both parents when there are two fit parents.
So, what will it take for our circuit court judges to start extending these same benefits to a family at the initial time of divorce, not after they’ve financially given up everything to fight simply for fair time with their kids? And when will the Legislature begin listening to the growing voice of their constituents asking for change, versus the few voices of a financially lucrative industry?
In South Dakota as a whole, we are good people, and generally speaking, the parents of our children are great parents, so why in divorce do we assume one parent gets four days per month as stated in the visitation guidelines? It is time to stop treating every custody case in South Dakota as if one parent is a drug-abusing child molester and start assuming we have two good, stable, loving parents and then decide what is best for the child.
Mitchell’s own Sen. Mike Vehle has argued against shared parenting, comparing some parents in South Dakota to Charlie Sheen and comparing divorce to the Middle East conflicts.
Yet there is not one study in the past 30 years that says an every-other-weekend or four-days-per-month custody schedule for noncustodial parents is good for kids, and that is what South Dakota’s system is still based upon.
— Casey Wilson, of Flandreau and formerly of Plankinton, has been a leader in the effort to pass legislation known as the Kids Need Both Parents bill.
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel (about their ex), they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeleteHOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
ReplyDelete~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS