The Supreme Court has consistently described the parenting right to be among the “oldest liberty interests” protected by the American Constitution, see i.e. Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000);Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982); Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979); Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 232 (1972) and Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923). But this right is quickly eroding as part of a new world order, and it requires your protest, American style, before we lose it altogether. To avoid becoming the next victim, you need to join our cause.
Social science research has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that children do far better with equal custody than sole custody. In fact over 146 times better. Yet most states and judges award over 80% sole custody making these judges some of the most prolific child abusers on the planet today.
PROTECT YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS
BECAUSE:
- Divorce Courts will NOT protect your rights if you don’t demand it
- Divorce Attorneys will NOT tell you how to preserve your parental rights in divorce
- Most Divorce lawyers do NOT know how to preserve your parental rights in divorce
- Child custody laws and family law codes violate your constitutional rights by default
Stop the winner take all slug fest. Deny the Judge any authority to restrict or deny your parental rights. Put your child’s best interest first by ensuring that you remain an equal parent in your child’s life.
If you want to keep your rights to your child, you can try trusting the default winner take all system and blindly follow your divorce lawyer’s lead. You may or may not get a fair shot at getting custody. You may or may not be in a county that supports equal rights for parents. Some counties favor women and deny fathers rights in custody battles. Some counties overcompensate for gender neutrality and deny women’s rights to custody. Without a gender bases for deciding custody, the decision comes down to the arbitrary and capricious whim of your judge. If the Judge doesn’t like you under these rules then you are simply out of luck!
Hope and protection come in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the long history of Supreme Court opinions that support parental rights. These authors have studied over 100 United States Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the eighteen hundreds to understand the source of parental rights under the constitution. This book cites over 90 of these cases and several cases from Federal Appellate Courts, and State Supreme Courts. Although this is a heavily cited and professionally written book, It is written to be easily read by non-attorneys and to be accessible for parents in divorce. This book is much more than simply the authors’ opinions. It is chock full of cogent constitutional arguments tied directly to the Supreme Court’s own words. This book tells the Supreme Court’s history of opinions on parental rights from the perspective of divorcing parents focused on their particular concerns.
There are only three things that give a Judge authority to limit or take away your parental rights, all of which the State MUST prove, and none of which are appropriate in a Divorce Proceeding. Do you know what those three things are? Inside this book you will learn about the false “best interests of the child” standard that Judges wrongly use impose their moral, religious, and political values in child custody without any fear of being overturned on appeal. What is the correct interpretation and how do you argue that effectively? If you want the terror of child custody hearings to end then you need to get the knowledge and seize the authority that is rightfully yours as a parent in America.
If you are already a non-custodial parent and have not been proven unfit, you will discover the basis for restoring your parental rights. You can modify your custody arrangement based on constitutional violations backed by specific references to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to restore your rights, you only need to have studied over 100 Supreme Court cases and synthesized their meaning. Or, if you want to take the easier route, you can get the story in this book from the authors who have done this for you already.
NOT In the Child’s Best Interest is a book that empowers parents to protect their constitutional parental rights, and their fundamental liberty interests in the care, custody, and control over their child. Learn how as a fit parent your determination of your child’s best interests trumps that of the judge every time. Learn the constitutional rules for when a court can take your fundamental parental rights and when they can’t. What are those three things that the State MUST prove? Find out why the divorce court doesn’t have this authority unless you give it to them.
ARE YOUR CHILDREN BEING STOLEN FROM YOU BY A DIVORCE COURT
- Did you foolishly believe that your Parental rights would be protected in divorce
- Have you spent tens of thousands of dollars in a futile effort to keep your child?
- Divorce Courts ARE violating our constitutional rights
- Attorneys WILL NOT tell you about this!
- Divorce Courts ARE hurting our children!
- Divorce Courts ARE acting without constitutional authority!
- They get away with it BECAUSE you do not fight them properly!
THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY TAKES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM OUR CHILDREN EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
This book, NOT In the Child’s Best Interest, will show you what your constitutional rights are and where they come from. It will show you how Divorce Courts are able to violate your child custody rights, at will, because parents don’t understand these basic facts about parental rights. Most importantly, this book will give you the power to be a parent even if the divorce court judge doesn’t like you.
Your right to the care, custody and control over your child is a Fundamental Liberty, just as your right to free speech is, or your right to freedom of religion is a Fundamental Liberty. Your child has the right to associate with you and to have you as a parent, not a visitor, in their life. You and your child have privacy rights in your family life that are between you and your child as individuals. They do NOT come from the marriage, and, if you are a natural parent, they do NOT come from the Government. NO Divorce Court Judge can properly take these rights away from you or your child unless YOU let them.
- Knowledge is Power!
- Know your Rights!
- Defend your Rights Effectively!
- Remain an Equal Parent to your Child!
Just as the “Family” is the foundation of society, the Father-Mother relationship is the foundation of the family; consequently, strengthening Mother-Father relationships can only lead to stronger families, children and communities, as well as a stronger economy.
ReplyDeleteChildren thrive with the active involvement of both parents. Children and parents should be encouraged to spend substantial time with each other regardless of the parents’ present relationship status. I realize and recognize that absent issues of abuse, neglect or abandonment, social and government policy must be structured in such a way as to promote and maximize the opportunity of all parents to contribute to the social, emotional, intellectual, physical, moral and spiritual development of their children.
“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…”
Delete~ 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
7 Steps for Managing Awful Opposing Counsel -
ReplyDelete“Honestly, based on the dealings I’ve had so far, I dislike the other attorneys more than the opposing spouse! Why do attorneys have to make everything so personal?”
The guy who said that practices family law in Florida, and I couldn’t agree more.
You’ve had the same experience. The opposing counsel is making you miserable. You are not alone.
My friend in Florida asked, “How do you deal with attorneys like that?”
I’ll attempt to answer. However, I’ll warn you now that there isn’t a secret formula for these situations. There isn’t a perfect solution for dealing with these difficult humans.
When I’m dealing with one of these lawyers, I assume that we’re in for the long haul. These folks typically drag out every element of the case.
How to Never Let Your Clients (Or Opposing Counsel) See You Sweat
Here’s my advice:
1. Accept it. Accept that they are who they are and that you can’t change that reality.
2. Be normal. Make every effort to resolve your cases as amicably as usual. Be yourself. Don’t let their anger, hostility, and bad behavior change you. Don’t spend any special time or effort coming up with some magic plan of action because it’s not likely to work, and it only raises your clients’ expectations.
3. Explain the increased expense. Tell your clients that you’re likely to go to trial. Explain to the clients how this sort of behavior works in these cases. Explain that it drives up the costs and that they’re in for a long, expensive battle unless they want to concede now and be done by taking a grossly unfair deal. Help your clients understand that a bad deal is a choice some people prefer when compared to letting opposing counsel drag things on forever. Do a cost/benefit analysis with your clients.
4. Inoculate yourself with your clients. Tell your clients they’re going to have doubts about the quality of your representation and the fairness of the process. Help the clients understand that opposing counsel is acting in an effort to have that impact. Explain that opposing counsel’s bad behavior undermines confidence in you, and that’s the intent. Explain that it makes clients feel out of control. Predict the future for your clients—a future filled with ugly comments, unpleasant interactions, and protracted litigation. Help your clients understand that ultimately, the outcome will still be fair and reasonable.
5. Avoid emotional counterpunching. Make no effort to psych out opposing counsel. Tell your clients why you aren’t going to bother. Don’t attempt to be a bigger jerk than they’re being. Try not to engage in the crazy behavior. Moving forward with the process is the only agenda.
6. Get ready for trial. Keep moving your cases forward. Always have an event on the calendar. Assume you’re going to try these cases, and don’t get sucked into the endless insanity of unproductive settlement discussions.
7. Get it over with. Try the cases. Your clients need finality. They need it to be over. You’ve prepared them for the inevitability of a long, hard slog, and they know it ends with the judgment of the court. Push it forward and get it finished. That way, neither you nor your clients will have to deal with these difficult humans any longer than necessary.
As I said earlier, there isn’t an easy solution for these most difficult lawyers. Just do the job and accept that they make the process inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant. By pushing forward and disconnecting from the aggravating insanity, you’ll survive this case and be ready for the next one. Unfortunately, you’ll likely have another case with these same lawyers and have to deal with their negative behavior again down the road.
If knowing that you’ll have to deal with these people over and over is something you can’t tolerate, then sadly, this work may not be for you.
Source: http://divorcediscourse.com
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?
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."
Review from the late Carl Fredrich, founder of the American Pro Se Association
ReplyDelete2012 ~
" "How to Win a Lawsuit Without Hiring a Lawyer" is a very informative book -- and for those who find themselves in certain circumstances it can be said to be indispensable. The book might be more appropriately entitled: "Pursuing A Lawsuit Without A Lawyer: Even Against the Authorities." This book, as far as we know, is the only simplified low cost resource addressing an area of increasing need -- where one's rights have been trampled or denied by police or other officials and how you can do something affordable about it. The book actually contains an enormous amount of information and legal theories and specific instructions on how to proceed with respect to a number of issues.
Considering it is a generic law book written to address both Federal and all 50 states laws, it possesses both the advantages and drawbacks inherent in covering so much territory. The book also addresses this difficult problem and stresses the need to consult specific state statutes and/or the necessary specific information on any administrative law forums should they be applicable. (These are often called 'administrative law court' but they are really central panels of the administrative branch -- not judicial branch of government.)