Are fathers getting equal treatment when it comes to enforcement of custodial interference?
The family court system in the United States is failing our children.
Tina Swithin
Thank you for your article Tina!
We really appreciate and totally agree with the first sentence..."The family court system in the United States is failing our children. Our appointed judges and commissioners are supposed to act in the best interest of the child, but unfortunately, they are not. "
Then you wrote..."Seth, is a welcomed relief to the court. Seth seems educated, articulate and he is fighting for his children. Step back into reality for a moment and the truth is that Seth isn't fighting for custody of our children, he is fighting to win and to gain control over me. Winning and control are the primary driving forces of individuals with personality disorders."
So if Seth is educated, articulate and is fighting for his children why would you think otherwise and why not leave at that? Is it mom who is saying he has a personality/mental disorder because he wants to control her?
You wrote that..."Winning and control are the primary driving forces of individuals with personality disorders". Do you realize how that sounds? Tina, don't you have any competitors in the media business? Don't you like to win when you play? We think in all fairness you should interview Seth and get his input. We wonder what and how many mental illness or personality disorders Seth can come with to describe mom.
So sad! It's bad enough that we have an adversarial legal system where the opponents jobs in court is to create false perceptions of the other instead of collaborating for the child's sake and "best interest". Now you want Family Court Judges to diagnose litigants with personality disorders in court? Imagine a Judge with a 1,000 family court cases trying to figure out if a parent has got a personality disorder. It's scary enough when they tell you in court that they have to decide the "best interest" of YOUR CHILD !!!
Read more
Thank you for your article Tina!
We really appreciate and totally agree with the first sentence..."The family court system in the United States is failing our children. Our appointed judges and commissioners are supposed to act in the best interest of the child, but unfortunately, they are not. "
Then you wrote..."Seth, is a welcomed relief to the court. Seth seems educated, articulate and he is fighting for his children. Step back into reality for a moment and the truth is that Seth isn't fighting for custody of our children, he is fighting to win and to gain control over me. Winning and control are the primary driving forces of individuals with personality disorders."
So if Seth is educated, articulate and is fighting for his children why would you think otherwise and why not leave at that? Is it mom who is saying he has a personality/mental disorder because he wants to control her?
You wrote that..."Winning and control are the primary driving forces of individuals with personality disorders". Do you realize how that sounds? Tina, don't you have any competitors in the media business? Don't you like to win when you play? We think in all fairness you should interview Seth and get his input. We wonder what and how many mental illness or personality disorders Seth can come with to describe mom.
So sad! It's bad enough that we have an adversarial legal system where the opponents jobs in court is to create false perceptions of the other instead of collaborating for the child's sake and "best interest". Now you want Family Court Judges to diagnose litigants with personality disorders in court? Imagine a Judge with a 1,000 family court cases trying to figure out if a parent has got a personality disorder. It's scary enough when they tell you in court that they have to decide the "best interest" of YOUR CHILD !!!
Read more
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.
WE SUPPORT DAKOTA'S PAGE
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
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, September 8, 2015
A real disease is what a person has...mental illness refers to what a person does. Did you know that it only takes one person (yourself) to have a "real" disease it takes two people to have a mental illness. http://iloveandneedmydaughter.blogspot.com/2012/08/chill-eb-prove-it-official-video.html
ReplyDelete"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, 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
DeleteIf Family Courts are going to issue marriage Licenses, why don't they provide personality disorder evaluations then and save us all the expense?
ReplyDeleteThe Broken Family Court System is also failing our parents when their children are taken away from them all to make money & save face for an inept staff at the nursing home like what 'Life Care Ctr. of Rayn., MASS. did to my good Canadian Family from Alberta/Newfoundland! My classmates Atty. Robt. G. Treano & Judge Gary Nickerson presiding in what I call 'Taunton Gate!' Over a 'Bakers Dirty Dozen' of the 'Dirtest Atty's.' on the 'Broken MASS. Bench!' All covered up by politicians like the 'Most Corrupt Atty. Gen'l. Martha Coakely & her political buddy Jewish Congresman Barney Frank who made this 'Blue Collar Canadian Dtr.' to go broke & homeless & don't think for one minute that American Atty's., Judges & Politicians don't have friends here in Canada because they do! Amen & Blessings ~ G-d's Secret Angel XO
ReplyDeleteIt is a Marxist method of ensuring money is moving around; the more money moving the better the economy looks
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence is what stands out to me the most in the article:
ReplyDelete"Sadly, these issues come back to parental rights and the fact that the family court system places a higher priority on parental rights than what is truly in the best interest of our children."
Hmmm, really? Then why is it that 90% of fathers are noncustodial supporting parents with no other significance or importance to their child than to their financial contribution?
Dear Tina,
ReplyDeleteI have not spent any time witnessing a custody battle in the courts but I would see how distressing it must be for all parties.
However, getting back to your article I find myself sat here with " an open mouth " at your headline which states that COURTS ARE LETTING OUR CHILDREN DOWN...whatever the courts do there shall always be one parent who feels let down....because the custody battle was won by their significant " other "
But for you to claim that children are being let-down by the court system I feel as though I I need to say something about that particular headline and why I feel strongly enough about it to comment on it.
Firstly, for a child to feel " let down " by anyone they must be of a significant age otherwise a child would not know how the feeling of being let-down makes them feel. So your headline must be directed towards the older children who do know how it feels being let-down rather than at the younger children huh !
This is my concern regarding your choice of headline. If the article is directed more towards the children old enough to know how it feels to be let-down then I think that it is the parents of these children who are letting their children down as older children should be given their own choice of which parent they prefer to live with...for the parents to disregard the needs and preferences of their children in order so as to fullfill their own wants by dragging the children through unpleasant court battles...well this should now speak for itself regarding parents willing to put their children through this kind of turmoil.
If your headline was directed at young children being let-down...again I say that the rest should speak for itself because these children do not feel let down...they are not of an age to feel such emotions and have no idea what being " let-down " means, let alone how it feels. I apologise if I come across as curt, this was not my intention but a subject for which stirred something within me.
Love Today x
A Support and Advocacy blog for Protective Parents and innocent Children harmed by wrongdoing under the color of law, the Family Law and CPS Industries. We investigate where the media can't or won't go.
DeleteThe people "have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." In Keeping with the Constitution, Blind Bulldog is committed to serving the common good in Shasta County.
The following, brilliant take is from a Blind Bulldog affiliate from Southern Cal:
"The untethered aggression of family courts is due to a vacuum of institutional client advocacy--unlike criminal courts, which have firmly-established constitutional rights, strict state and federal oversight of state court judges, and a dedicated “criminal defense bar” to thwart government aggression, or civil courts that have “plaintiffs'” and “defense” bars to balance one another’s private agendas, family court has no “litigant bar.” The divorce attorneys themselves favor aggression for the simple reason identified in the movie--follow the money. Attorneys have not filled that vacuum to defend their own clients, leaving them vulnerable to the natural tendency of government to intrude. Family court litigants are, sad to say, woefully unaware of what they’re up against, and the body count shows results that are entirely predictable--but we think preventable.
Family court was created by lawyers and judges--literally--rather than the citizens it should be protecting. We’ve located the history through testimony and other documentation showing something like a Jekyll Island series of “off the record” meetings between California judges, attorneys, and bureaucrats in the 90’s to “set up” family court to their liking, then seeking what became essentially a rubber stamp granting unheard of discretion from the California legislature. This system is now unfortunately the model or trend for many states--hence our nationwide membership and approach. Citizens had virtually no input and maintain no control.
Federal courts have observed unusually broad adaptations of “federalism,” “comity,” “standing,” and “abstention” legal doctrines to leave the vacuum unoccupied by otherwise ordinary protections of federal rights for individual citizens and legal consumers. Litigants themselves are outmatched in organization--they’re a revolving door commodity. No one wants to stick around long enough to enforce reform. Hence rampant abuse in a lop-sided system of foxes guarding the henhouse, and you and I are on the ever-expanding menu."
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:
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."