"Sometimes the poorest man leaves his children the richest inheritance." ~ Ruth E. Renkel
Fatherlessness is the #1 social problem of our time because it is the root cause of at least 20 other social problems.
How will you fix this??
Top upvoted questions will be delivered to the candidates
Social problems including: teen suicide, mass murder, crime, drug usage, parental suicide, teen pregnancy and even over 50% of all mental health problems in the U.S. today. The divorce industry is essentially a a criminal racket that is destroying society for its profit motives! Literally! Fatherless Homes Now Proven Beyond Doubt Harmful To Children Children from fatherless homes are*: - 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders - 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide - 6.6 times more likely to become teenage mothers - 24.3 times more likely to run away - 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders - 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions - 10.8 times more likely to commit rape - 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school - 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage - 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes - 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions There is a fundamental liberty right guaranteed to both parents by the 14th Amendment. This is the right to the care, custody, and nurture of their children. According to the Supreme Court of the United States: Absent a Compelling State Interest of harm or potential harm to the child, the State may not intervene in the privacy of family life. Overall, research studies show that children of joint custodians are better adjusted than children of sole custodians on each of the following measures: general adjustment; family relations; self-esteem; emotional adjustment; behavioral adjustment; and divorce-specific adjustment. Another benefit of Joint Physical Custody is that it improves child support compliance. Researchers have found a positive correlation between the frequency of a parents contact with a child and the payment of child support.
Protection or Punishment from Tom Lemons on Vimeo.
Investigative reporter Tom Lemons reveals the truth behind orders of protection and batterer’s intervention programs.
You’ll be shocked to hear what really happens behind the scenes and how current domestic violence laws seem to cause more harm that good.
Finally I am releasing my documentary DVI The Inside Story for public viewing. I hope all of you enjoy the film. I will begin production of my next film (untitled) in September, which will contain shocking footage from inside a County Clerk's Office and Batterer's Intervention Programs. I'll keep you posted.
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, February 1, 2016
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, February 1, 2016
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Sunday, January 31, 2016
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Sunday, January 31, 2016
Do you support a presumption of equal parental fitness, regardless of gender, being enshrined in law in accordance with the 14th Amendment?
1,026 votes
Top upvoted questions will be delivered to the candidates
Currently, there are laws, standards, and practices that--when combined--constitute discriminatory policies in Family Court jurisdictions particularly against fathers. By extension, these violate the rights of children.
Family Courts violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause as a standard practice by relegating one parent to "Custodial" and another to "Non-Custodial", most often along gender lines.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit courts have long upheld the Parent-Child relationship as being so fundamental as to warrant EXTENSIVE due process protections.
There is consensus in the psychological community that shared parenting is in the best interests of children more often than not. Aside from the Constitutional Law violations, would it not stand to reason that shared parenting should be the standard, instead of the rare exception in separation/child custody issues?
Family Law needs serious reform, and Family Courts should not be empowered to create master/slave dynamics--again, especially along gender lines--without each parent having Due Process observed, and observed equally. Each parent should be on equal footing walking into a courtroom. Our children deserve to have both parents scrutinized by the same standards. That is in their "best interest".
A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting should be the starting point in all jurisdictions. The parent and/or state should have the burden of proof placed on their shoulders to prove the other parent as "unfit" or "less than fit" in order to deviate from the shared parenting presumption. The concept is the same as "presumption of innocence".
In the vast majority of cases, one parent(usually the father), has to overcome higher standards of proof to approach equality in parenting. Shared parenting presumptions begin to level the playing field, which is in our children's best interest. Family Law Reform needs to be an election topic in 2016.
Family Courts violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause as a standard practice by relegating one parent to "Custodial" and another to "Non-Custodial", most often along gender lines.
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit courts have long upheld the Parent-Child relationship as being so fundamental as to warrant EXTENSIVE due process protections.
There is consensus in the psychological community that shared parenting is in the best interests of children more often than not. Aside from the Constitutional Law violations, would it not stand to reason that shared parenting should be the standard, instead of the rare exception in separation/child custody issues?
Family Law needs serious reform, and Family Courts should not be empowered to create master/slave dynamics--again, especially along gender lines--without each parent having Due Process observed, and observed equally. Each parent should be on equal footing walking into a courtroom. Our children deserve to have both parents scrutinized by the same standards. That is in their "best interest".
A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting should be the starting point in all jurisdictions. The parent and/or state should have the burden of proof placed on their shoulders to prove the other parent as "unfit" or "less than fit" in order to deviate from the shared parenting presumption. The concept is the same as "presumption of innocence".
In the vast majority of cases, one parent(usually the father), has to overcome higher standards of proof to approach equality in parenting. Shared parenting presumptions begin to level the playing field, which is in our children's best interest. Family Law Reform needs to be an election topic in 2016.
Post by David Inguanzo.
Let’s continue to bring awareness and help unite
children with their estranged fathers
Our very own Gary Ewing F4J protester in Trenton
“Thomas Ball Society”. Family advocates will join efforts across the nation in protest of a system of laws which is taking children from good parents on an escalating scale. The state seizes other children through oppressive “custody” and “support” processes which force parents to fight over their own offspring.
Preceding his act of defiance against a Corrupt Family Court system, well, he will tell you about that system, he sent his Last Statement” to the sentinelsource.com Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support less than 3k. Sgt. Thomas Ball burned himself alive in front of the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse in Keene, New Hampshire this past June 2011 to bring attention and reform to these oppressive processes in the Corrupt Family Court System. Tom stood for the most basic principles upon which our nation was founded. However, the child has been converted by the state into a multi-billion dollar industry. We cannot even relate to the level of commitment, sacrifice and pain this man endured in an effort to see his children. The physical life of Thomas Ball may have been extinguished by a final dying ember at a courthouse of a small American town. But from Tom’s ashes, a patriotic spirit has been renewed which can never die.
As for our Family Court System
Police, other emergency personnel and the state medical examiner are seen outside the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse in downtown Keene Wednesday where a man was discovered on fire. The man was pronounced dead at the scene but has yet to be identified.
Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim
"JUSTICE, JUSTICE! SHALL YOU PURSUE" -Torah
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?
“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…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, 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
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."