Algunos padres, tras divorciarse, utilizan a sus hijos para dañar a su ex pareja. A ello se le denomina síndrome de alineación parental.
1) No lo permitas, maneja tu ruptura de manera pacífica y, si es necesario, recurre a un especialista.
2) No frustres a tu hijo diciéndole “papá o mamá te dejó”, “ya no te quiere”, “está con otra u otro”, etc. Lo único que estás haciendo es generarle un trauma.
3) Pensar en tu satisfacción propia es egoísta. Mira a tu hijo y trata de entender el grave daño que le haces.
4) Deja que su padre o madre lo visite. Tu hijo no tiene la culpa de los problemas o diferencias que hayas tenido con tu pareja.
5) No digas mentiras sobre tu pareja y mucho menos lo insultes en su presencia.
6) Explícale a tu hijo las razones que los obligaron a separarse.
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.
CUSTODIA PATERNA - Viernes, 3 de Mayo, 2013 *Publicado el 17/03/2013 *
Audio institucional de nuestra organización:
¿Que pedimos a las autoridades?
Nuestra lucha se centra el derecho de los niños a un vínculo sano con sus dos padres y toda su familia luego de un divorcio o separación.
- ¡NO MAS NIÑOS REHENES DEL DIVORCIO!
Los papás saben tanto como las mamás
viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA - 4 hours ago
Jueves, 28 de Noviembre, 2013 Enlaces: - Los niños sin referente paterno pueden volverse adultos agresivos - ESTUDIO CIENTIFICO - EL PROCESO DE VIOLENCIA EN LA DESPARENTALIZACION - Divorcio: las consecuencias de vivir sin un padre. - Huérfanos de padre en vida - Padrectomía, la otra violencia familiar - María Calvo Charro, "Paternidad escamoteada" más enlaces al final de la entrada (acceder a traves de "*más información* "). *Patricia Maguet Levy* Facebook http://www.facebook.com/psicologialafamilia http://www.psicologiavendrell.com/ Twitter @psicolafamilia En un artículo publicado en la... more »
Denuncia que la agredieron familiares de su ex pareja y resultó ser un vecino
viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA - 19 hours ago
Sábado, 28 de Septiembre, 2013 El Juzgado de lo Penal ha condenado a una mujer a una multa como autora responsable de un delito de denuncia falsa en grado de tentativa después de que denunciara a dos familiares de su ex pareja de una supuesta agresión hacia ella y su hijo cuando en realidad había sido un vecino. La sentencia considera como hechos probados que el 8 de septiembre de 2010 fue remitido al Juzgado de Instrucción Número 4 de Palencia dos partes de lesiones confeccionados con fecha de 5 de septiembre de 2010 tanto de ella como de su hijo. Tras ser llamada a declarar en nov... more »
Mucho dolor, poca justicia
viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA - 5 hours ago
Viernes, 13 de Septiembre, 2013 *PARAGUAY* Enlaces: - PADRES POR SIEMPRE - Paraguay - Entrevista 11/09/2013 Radio Cardinal AM(youtube) - III Charla sobre Síndrome de Alienación Parental página de FACEBOOk de "Padres por Siempre" en Paraguay UNIDOS CONTRA EL SÍNDROME DE ALIENACIÓN PARENTAL Padres decidieron unirse para luchar férrea y legalmente contra la alienación parental. Cada uno de ellos, separados ya de quienes fueron sus parejas, sufren el no poder ver ni educar a sus hijos. “Padres por siempre”, se define como una organización dispuesta a visibilizar un grave problema familia... more »
HOW 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?
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.
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.
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."
Intimidation of Pro-Se Litigants
ReplyDeleteThe attitude of court officers toward pro-se litigants ranges from condescending to openly hostile, and when pro se's oppose an experienced attorney, they are often dispatched before having the opportunity to properly present their case. In the following article, investigative reporter Sherman Skolnick describes a scenario he has witnessed.
Big Court Fix
Part 1: Introduction to what you need to know
SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK
Here is the start of what you need to know about the courts. This applies primarily to state and federal civil cases in bigger communities and cities. And please note, not EVERY court case is corrupt. Maybe one out of twenty, or one out of forty. But after you study this series, you might become more skilled in telling which is which.
In civil cases, judges usually designate a certain day at a certain time when they have "Motion Call." That means they put on the docket for that day a list of cases where motions (parts of cases) are to be heard.
So suppose you are a plaintiff, representing yourself against a defendant corporation or a politician or other important personality. You check the computer-generated Motion Call list taped to the wall outside the courtroom door.
You notice that you are among the first cases to be heard that morning. The judge is not yet on the bench. The defendant's attorney is at the desk, next to the bench, whispering to the deputy clerk.
The judge comes in, gets on the bench, and your case is among the first called. The clerk, or the judge himself, announces that your case will be heard "at the end of the call," which means you will have to wait in the courtroom for several hours, perhaps close to lunch-time.
Non-lawyers tend to call the other side, "the enemy." So your enemy's attorney goes out into the hallway with his cell phone. You follow him and ask, "You were whispering to the clerk before the Motion Call started. And when the judge got on the bench, my case was pushed to the end. What is going on?"
The enemy's "mouthpiece" does not respond. So you raise your voice and repeat the question. Suddenly, the deputy sheriff (state court) or deputy U.S. marshal (federal court) stationed in the courtroom comes out and comes up to you.
"If you don't stop threatening counsel, I am going to have to arrest you," he warns. Outraged at being falsely accused, you raise your voice to who in past years was called the court bailiff. He barks at you, "Get away from counsel, or I will arrest you."
You reluctantly walk away from the "counsel" and the "bailiff". You begin thinking to yourself, "Hey, what's going on here anyway?"
You go back into the courtroom and wait. Before the clerk calls your case, all the other motions have been heard and the court has been cleared out.
Suddenly, the bailiff goes to the courtroom door and locks it. If you are savvy, you look at the judge's face now. It is not more or less relaxed as you saw it during the Motion Call. After all, the judge often hobnobs socially with some of the same lawyers who were there during the Motion Call. He goes to golfing events with them from time to time. The judge sees many of the same attorneys at Bar Association luncheons and pep-talk meetings, where they pat themselves on the back for the great system of justice they are in. You think, "It is the wonderfully corrupt bench and the bar." And YOU are no part of it.
So now it is just you, your enemy's counsel, the judge, the clerk, and the bailiff. If you have been around the courts before, you know to notice that the judge's face is now a little red. Although judges practice to show no expression about which way they are going to rule, they are still human and it sometimes does show in their face when a particularly difficult or clout-heavy case is to be heard.
“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