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