Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were promised to each of us by our founding fathers. And the resulting legal system was intended to protect us and sustain us with reason, fairness and order. But the present state of family law makes this harder and harder to achieve – particularly in regards to divorce. Arbitrary laws and a confrontational legal system have created a litigious nightmare for many of us.
Finding Truth 4 Children (FT4C) is a self-censored chronicle of courtroom dramas, lived by people who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence.
Family Law Reform, Inc. was founded upon the same sound promise: that the dream of a decent life, the freedom to pursue it, and the resulting happiness are not for the few, not for those who have the most money or who have the most aggressive attorney, but for each one of us.
Family Law Reform’s most immediate goal is the creation of reasonable guidelines in our Florida divorce law to inform and assist judges in their continuing oversight and orders for alimony. These guidelines would discourage the destructive practice of continued litigation in order to determine a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’. The present adversarial situation is destroying families while creating wealth for the courts and litigating family lawyers.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
See video of an interesting recent Florida divorce case that took 4 years and $100,000 in attorneys fees. The ex-wife ended up in major debt and paying alimony. This is why we need alimony reform in Florida.
FT4C is a spin-off of the "More Than Solomon Project" (MTS) of National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP).
While MTS focuses on grandparent rights, FT4C welcomes the story of anyone who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence.
As of January 2013, NJCDLP is examining the constitutionality of how U.S. judges tend to resolve credibility contests (a/k/a "he said - she said" fights) in determining grandparent rights. So far, related investigation and research suggest the fact-finding process is too subjective and may foster class-based discrimination. The same or similar due process and equal protection considerations may be warranted in any child visitation or custody proceeding.
Have you lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence? If yes, AND you are NOT forbidden to share related details by court order or some provision of law, please tell us your story here at FT4C.
GRANDPARENTS: Did you lose all or some visitation with or custody of a grandchild or grandchildren based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence? If yes, please take part in our confidential survey. For details: CLICK HERE
Created to combat abuses of America's legal system that are facilitated by judicial misconduct. Its basic objective is legal reform through litigation, galvanized by every imaginable form of advocacy that can lawfully and effectively help preserve the "rule of law" in the United States on a case by case basis.
NJCDLP focuses on judicial collusion, but its ability to challenge that form of official misconduct through litigation has changed. Learn More
To achieve a constitutionally acceptable reform of alimony law, Family Law Reform believes that the process of dissolution places undue burdens on those who simply wish to change their fundamental constitutional right of association and exercise their fundamental constitutional right of privacy by altering their marital status when they dissolve their marriage.
- Floridians must be able to end their marriage with a well defined goal of minimal intrusion by the state and a well defined and reasonable time limit.
- Alimony statutes must be reformed to be duration limited so that they are in accordance with other statute mandated entitlements such as child support, welfare, and unemployment compensation.
- There will be a rebuttable presumption that the standard of living after a divorce will be lower than what was had during the marriage to ensure that both parties receive equal protection under the law.
- An equitable division of assets must occur in order to achieve as close to a 50/50 distribution of all marital assets and liabilities as possible, apart from any transitional alimony award, unless exceptional circumstances occur.
- Alimony must not be calculated or used to supplement a child support order.
- Unbridled judicial discretion must be removed from alimony statutes.
- The judiciary is a constitutional mandate to protect citizens from the legislative and executive branches of government. Therefore, the adversarial aspect of alimony must be removed to eliminate the profit motive.
- Citizens seeking to dissolve their marriages are not victims of one another.
- Reaching a reasonable retirement age and retiring from one’s profession will eliminate any future alimony obligation unless exceptional circumstances occur.
- Support self-sufficiency for the lower-earning spouse through alimony payments during a transition period, which lasts more than a decade in long-term marriages.
- Maintain appropriate judicial discretion to fairly judge unique circumstances where the lower-earning spouse is physically or mentally unable to work, continuing alimony payments in special cases, and only until no longer needed.
- End lifelong alimony dependency, allowing both parties of the divorce to be able to move-on and live independent lives.
- Protect second spouses from current case law, which requires judges to fully investigate second-spouses’ income/assets and then force the alimony payer to pay an increased amount of alimony to a first spouse based now on a new “family income” – or face jail.
- End expensive legal battles over vague alimony laws and interpretations.
- Provide equal and consistent treatment, so that the outcome of an alimony case is not decided by the Russian Roulette selection of the family court judge.
TOP 10 GOALS FOR FAMILY LAW
(I) Judicial immunity and adversarial processes encourage legal abuse and do not adequately protect the Constitutional rights of parents and children in family court. Proposed Solution: Drive legislation to overturn judicial decisions that violate the Constitutional rights of litigants. Develop policies and practices to ensure accountability and recourse when rights and legal precedent aren’t upheld.
(II) Lack of transparency, consistency, and oversight creates a judicial and legal environment that allows for gross abuse and injustice and does not adequately represent and adapt to the needs of litigants and their families. Proposed Solution: Create a national website and develop additional resources to provide information, two way communication between family court officials and the litigants they serve, and assist families through the divorce and/or legal custody processes. Provide an ongoing commitment of resources to monitor and address family court issues. Provide data collection and reporting capabilities about judges, attorneys, and case outcomes.
(III) Financial gain creates an incentive for litigants and attorneys to pursue an adversarial process rather than collaborative methods that incorporate mediation and third party negotiation that are clearly better for families and children. Proposed Solution: Mandate and fund ADR / Mediation and require courts to inform and assist litigants who wish to use this option.
(IV) Parents should have a right to equal no or low cost representation in court or through third party mediation / negotiation. A parent without means to hire an attorney should not be required to research and argue case law against a licensed attorney in order to defend their own basic rights. Proposed Solution: Provide a simpler, more streamlined divorce option and require courts to inform and assist litigants who wish to use this option.
(VI) Requirement to assign one parent as the “primary custodial parent” and limit the rights of the other “non-custodial parent” encourages adversarial processes, false accusations and violates the Constitutional rights of both parents and children. Proposed Solution: Equal / shared parenting time (50/50) and decision making authority should be assumed unless otherwise necessary for the safety of the child and/or negotiated by the parents.
(VII) Support is not determined by actual income and necessary expenses to care for children; Child support is used as backdoor long term alimony; Failure to pay is treated as a crime without due process and violates the 13th and 14th amendments. Proposed Solution: Equal division of financial responsibility (50/50) should be assumed unless otherwise necessary to meet the basic needs of the child and/or negotiated by the parents. Revise or replace Bradley Bill to provide relief for parents that cannot pay. Use USDA calculations for basic needs of the child.
(VIII) Gender discrimination in handling of custody, support, and DV claims violate civil and Constitutional rights. Proposed Solution: Revise or replace VAWA to expand protections to men and women equally.
(IX) The long term effects of family court and its related agencies impact our entire society, but reform is not a priority for many, there is little consensus on the solutions and resistance from those who profit off the $50B divorce industry. Proposed Solution: Launch a multi-faceted national awareness campaign timed to become a key issue in the 2016 presidential election.
(X) Family court professionals and litigants need support and education both during and after proceedings. Proposed Solution: Provide ongoing support and information to the public and professionals.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:
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.
When it's time to divorce, put your children first - really.
ReplyDeleteOn behalf of Edwards & Associates posted in Custody on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
You've probably heard it before: the reminder that when it comes to divorce, it's important to consider your children. Most people claim to want what's best for their kids, and in their hearts, they do. But in practice, particularly during divorce proceedings, this can be frustratingly difficult.
Child custody is just one of the details you and your soon-to-be ex need to work out as you prepare for your new lives apart. Although the days when custody was automatically awarded to the mother are long behind us, mothers are still more likely to be granted primary custody, and fathers often fail to stand up for their rights.
It's important to keep in mind that unless either of you has shown to be an unfit parent, children greatly benefit in the long term from having relatively equal time with both parents. Too often custody is used as a tool to exact revenge on a spouse, and while it may initially feel good for the parent awarded custody to hold that judgment over the other parent's head, in the end, it's your child who suffers most, not your spouse. At the same time, remember to stick up for yourself before assuming you won't get as much time with the kids as your ex.
Accompanying the issue of custody is child support. In the state of Georgia, child support is usually calculated using the incomes of both parents along with the amount of time their children spend with each. But what if custody didn't enter the equation, and the amount of money each parent had to work with was settled without that tug of war? If custody and support were determined separately, there might be less fighting over both.
Speaking of fighting, many parents believe that they're effectively hiding their emotions about the divorce from their children. But keep in mind how perceptive kids can be without talking directly to them. They hear you on the phone, in the next room, complaining to your friends or to yourself about your ex. Divorce almost always has a long-term negative effect on children. Your job as their parent at this time is to lessen that negativity in whatever way possible. That means both you and your ex need to treat each other as respectfully as you can, and to truly put your child's feelings ahead of your own.
The end of your marriage doesn't have to spell the end of good times for anyone -- you, your spouse or your children. But you as a parent are responsible for ensuring that the details of your divorce, whether it's time (child custody) or money (child support), don't get in the way of a happy childhood for your son or daughter.
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?
"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."