Wednesday

Coalition for Equal Parenting


Coalition for Equal Parenting > Home

CFEP was formed to give PARENT'S an outlet for support and to share their stories.

Legislators: Protect Parental Rights and Children's Lives 


Our Constitutional right to bear arms is front and center in state and federal legislatures. But where is the debate on protecting our basic human rights to parent our children? (also constitutionally protected by the 14th amendment) Every day in every state, mothers and fathers lose their basic human right to parent their children. 


Why? Because the divorce industry wants your family’s money! Estimated at $170 Billion annually! How? 


We all have a family member, friend or neighbor who has been through a nasty divorce. Most of us believe children need both parents equally and that there exist a standard of 50/50 custody that the courts start from. NOT TRUE!!!! 


THERE IS NO PARENTING TIME STANDARD!!! THIS LACK OF STANDARD CREATES 90% OF ALL DIVORCE CONFLICT AND DIVORCE LITIGATION!!! IT DESTROYS FAMILIES AND LIVES!!! STOP IT NOW!!!!! 


In litigated divorce, there is no standard as to how children should spend their time between parents. The lack of a parenting time standard causes our children to be viewed as a prize where unethical lawyers and custody evaluators use them as pawns between parents. If there were a parenting time standard, it would resolve over half of divorce litigation taking place right now. 


MAKE PRESUMPTIVE 50/50 THE REBUTTABLE STANDARD AND ELIMINATE CUSTODY EVALUATIONS 


Start with the presumption that both parents are fit and entitled to an equal role in their children’s lives. This presumption is rebuttable only by findings of fact based upon a preponderance of evidence in abuse, neglect or addiction. Everything else unconstitutionally denies parents their rights to parent children. 


ONLY OUR LEGISLATORS CAN PROTECT US FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF DIVORCE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE AND EQUAL STANDARDS 


The divorce industry is $170B annually and motivated to oppose standards so they can create, promote and perpetuate conflict to increase billing hours exponentially  Have you ever heard “It's only the lawyers who win in divorce”? Add to lawyers: custody evaluators (duplicate roles in some states), criminal lawyers, courts, psychologists  therapists, investigators, GALs, an entire cottage industry of brokers! 


With overdue and demanded, simple and just changes to state statues, families and children can be forever protected from the ravages of the divorce industry by a simple and equal standard. 


The lack of a presumptive 50/50 rebuttable standard destroys lives and families, often forever. Children as pawns can be scared for life, arbitrarily lose a parent, or two, for life and are in much greater peril in life. Mothers and fathers lose their children and react badly. Suicide and homicide is not uncommon. Mothers and fathers can be jailed for protecting their children or going bankrupt. 


LIVES ARE DESTROYED!!! Check out www.lawlessamerica.com for 750 testimonies from around the country. 


RESEARCH SAYS: CHILDREN, PARENTS AND SOCIETY WANT A PRESUMPTION OF 50/50 REBUTTABLE STANDARD. 


Arizona has become the most progressive state in the union by passing laws that focus on equally shared parenting time and accountability for making false claims in order gain an upper hand in the divorce. Google William V. Fabricius and his research. Go to www.endparentalalienation.com http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/equalparenting/f/equalparenting1.htm or http://ideas.time.com/2012/06/01/equal-parenting-why-we-need-to-rethink-a-50-50-split


MAKE 50/50 THE PRESUMPTIVE REBUTTABLE STANDARD FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS


Arizona’s Legislature passed SB-1127 by a margin of 74 – 9 (without the support of the Arizona BAR) that emphasized equal parenting and made litigants accountable for false allegations or intentionally misleading the court. Tennessee and several other states have taken similar steps but Arizona is the most progressive. This year, in these legislative sessions, state statues have to be passed that protect our parental rights, our children’s lives and our families from the ravages of the divorce industry.


END CUSTODY EVALAUTIONS


50/50 is rebuttable based upon findings of fact that demonstrate a preponderance of evidence supporting abuse, neglect, addiction or other serious issue as determined by the court. Evaluating personalities or parenting styles is purely subjective and an unacceptable intrusion of government in our lives. Custody evaluators are financially incentivized to perpetuate conflict and promote injustice to increase their billing hours. Lives shall not be destroyed based upon the greed of an industry. Custody evaluations must end.


MAKE 50/50 THE PRESUMPTIVE REBUTTABLE STANDARD FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN AND PARENTS


Please sign this petition letting your legislators know that you support creating a presumptive 50/50 rebuttable custody standard to protect our children and families from the ravages of the divorce industry.


To: State Legislators

What is more precious: your 14th amendment, basic human right to parent your children or your 2nd amendment right to bear arms? If you had to lose one, which would it be?

“Only lawyers win in the divorce” is the mantra from which Family Law  Statues where written under the false banner of a “child’s best interest.” The lack of a presumptive 50/50 Shared Parenting standard continues to make the divorce industry flourish while children’s lives lay in the ruin. 

By creating this 50/50 Shared Parenting standard, our children and parents will be protected from an industry that creates, promotes and perpetuates conflict for its financial gain. Lives are ruined, lives are lost and injustices beyond comprehension as children are alienated from their parents. 

The presumptive 50/50 Shared Parenting standard is based on an absence of a preponderance of evidence supporting abuse, neglect, addiction or other serious issue as defined by a Court. This fact-based and objective-based approach has to replace the hearsay and subjectively corrupt manner of today's family court processes. 

Given us this single standard can reduce the amount of divorce litigation by half and allow families to move forward with the best interest of all in mind. Help protect parental rights as strongly as gun rights.

It is your duty to introduce legislation establishing a presumptive 50/50 Shared Parenting standard and protect our divorcing families from being exploited by an industry for its own greed.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.



¿Que es la Custodia Compartida?


viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA 

Viernes, 3 de Mayo, 2013 Enlaces: - Un Estado-niñera, controlador, interventor y protector - 26-4 PADRES ARGENTINOS AUTOCONVOCADOS - 26-4 Padres de parana por la custodia compartida Año 2013 - 26-4 ASSOCIATION - ROBERTO TERRILE - CONVOCATORIA PARA EL 26 DE ABRIL 2013 A LOS TRIBUNALES DE FAMILIA - 26-4, 2013 Padres de la Guarda - 26-4 DERECHOS DE LA NIÑEZ Y ADOLESCENCIA, POLITICA DE ESTADO, YA! - Cibercampaña "vírica" de apoyo al 26-4 más enlaces al final de la entrada El 26 de Abril es el Día Internacional de la Igualdad Parental y la Corresponsabilidad Familiar. Por ello, el mejor... more »

2 comments:

  1. Children's Bill of Rights

    WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER

    Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn't forget -- and kids shouldn't let them -- when the family is in the midst of a break-up.

    You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn't feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It's important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.

    You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can't work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.

    You're entitled to all the feelings you're having. Don't be embarrassed by what you're feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you're allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.

    You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone -- either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.

    You don't belong in the middle of your parents' break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you're just a kid, and that you can't handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it's their fight, not yours.

    Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.

    You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn't worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.

    IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON'T BLAME YOURSELF.

    ----Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998

    "Children's Bill of Rights" is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 - 2001. All rights reserved. "Children's Bill of Rights" may be reproduced under the following conditions:

    It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.

    © 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614

    The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
    http://www.aamlflorida.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.tentips

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PRO SE RIGHTS:
      Sims 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."

      Delete

Take Action Now!

Children's Rights Florida

Florida Family Law Reform

Family Law Community

Search This Blog

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

Abuse (7) Abuse of power (1) Abuse of process (5) Admission to practice law (3) Adversarial system (83) Advocacy group (3) African American (1) Alienator (1) Alimony (7) All Pro Dad (1) All rights reserved (1) Allegation (2) Alliance for Justice (2) American Civil Liberties Union (3) American Psychological Association (1) Americans (2) Anecdotal evidence (2) Anti-discrimination law (1) Arrest (1) Bar association (1) Best interests (42) Bill (law) (1) British Psychological Society (1) Broward County (1) Broward County Public Schools (2) Brown University (1) Catholic Church (1) Center for Public Integrity (2) Chief judge (26) Child Abuse (48) Child custody (78) Child development (6) Child neglect (2) Child protection (15) Child Protective Services (19) Child Support (64) Children (3) Children's Rights (83) Christine Lagarde (1) Christmas (3) Circuit court (3) Civil and political rights (14) Civil law (common law) (1) Civil liberties (9) Civil Rights (145) Civil rights movement (1) Class action (1) Communist Party of Cuba (1) Confidentiality (1) Constitutional law (1) Constitutional right (5) Contact (law) (11) Contempt of court (4) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1) Coparenting (28) Copyright (1) Copyright infringement (1) Corruption (1) Court Enabled PAS (92) Court order (2) Cuba (1) Cuban Missile Crisis (1) Cuban Revolution (1) Custodial Parent (1) Declaratory judgment (3) Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact (110) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2) Divorce (124) Divorce Corp (6) Divorce Court (1) Documentary (25) Domestic Violence (51) Dr. Stephen Baskerville (5) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1) DSM-5 (1) DSM-IV Codes (1) Due Process (45) Due Process Clause (1) Dwyane Wade (1) Easter (1) Equal-time rule (2) Ethics (1) Events (10) Exposé (group) (1) Facebook (19) Fair use (1) False accusation (4) False Accusations (57) Family (1) Family (biology) (2) Family Court (198) Family Law (113) Family Law Reform (119) Family Rights (87) Family therapy (10) Father (12) Father figure (2) Father's Day (1) Father's Rights (12) Fatherhood (106) Fatherlessness Epidemic (4) Fathers 4 Justice (3) Fathers' rights movement (46) Fidel Castro (1) Florida (214) Florida Attorney General (7) Florida Circuit Courts (19) florida lawyers (30) Florida Legislature (6) Florida Senate (11) Foster care (1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1) Fraud (1) Free Speech (1) Freedom of speech (1) Frivolous litigation (1) Fundamental rights (12) Gainesville (1) Gender equality (1) Government Accountability Project (2) Government interest (2) Grandparent (3) Havana (1) Healthy Children (14) Human Rights (119) Human rights commission (1) I Love My Daughter (56) I Love My Son (8) Injunction (1) Innocence Project (1) Investigative journalism (1) Jason Patric (2) JavaScript (1) Joint custody (8) Joint custody (United States) (16) Judge (5) Judge Judy (7) Judge Manno-Schurr (55) Judicial Accountability (103) Judicial Immunity (7) Judicial misconduct (8) Judicial Reform (3) Judicial Watch (2) Judiciary (3) Jury trial (1) Kids for cash scandal (1) Law (2) Lawsuit (9) Lawyer (8) Legal Abuse (150) Liar Joel Greenberg (16) Linda Gottlieb (1) Litigant in person (1) Little Havana (1) Marriage (6) Matt O'Connor (1) Men's rights movement (1) Mental disorder (1) Mental health (2) Meyer v. Nebraska (1) Miami (44) Miami-Dade County (8) Miami-Dade County Public Schools (1) Miscarriage of justice (42) Mother (4) Motion of no confidence (1) Movie (4) Music (8) Nancy Schaefer (1) National Fatherhood Initiative (1) Natural and legal rights (1) News (89) Nixa Maria Rose (16) Non-governmental organization (1) Noncustodial parent (4) Organizations (60) Palm Beach County (1) Parent (35) Parental Alienation (116) Parental alienation syndrome (15) Parental Rights (36) Parenting (12) Parenting plan (6) Parenting time (7) Parents' rights movement (38) Paternity (law) (1) Personal Story (22) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1) Pope (1) Posttraumatic stress disorder (27) President of Cuba (1) Pro Se (30) Pro se legal representation in the United States (3) Prosecutor (1) Protest (1) Psychological manipulation (1) Psychologist (1) Public accommodations (1) Public Awareness (108) Raúl Castro (1) Re-Post/Re-Blog (12) Research (1) Restraining order (4) Rick Scott (12) Second-class citizen (1) Self Representation-Pro Se (31) Sexism (1) Sexual abuse (2) Sexual assault (1) Shared Parenting (92) Single parent (6) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1) Social Issues (59) Social Media (1) Spanish (8) Stand Up For Zoraya (47) State school (1) Student (1) Supreme Court of Florida (8) Supreme Court of the United States (5) Tampa (1) Testimony (23) Thanksgiving (2) The Florida Bar (10) The Good Men Project (1) Trauma (4) Troxel v. Granville (2) True Story (21) Turner v. Rogers (1) United States (26) United States Congress (1) United States Constitution (1) United States Department of Justice (4) Videos (51) Violence Against Women Act (1) Whistle-blower (3)