Fathers' and Children's Equality
A nonprofit support and self-help group for non-custodial parents and their families.
Another child saved from one-parent custody
Score card changes to 64 children saved.
-- Sorry ... To protect the parties' privacy we can't give a lot of details now. Dad joined FACE six months before he filed for divorce and was counseled by FACE throughout the entire process. He says its the best decision he ever made. Mom, with the help of women's shelter and her free lawyer, tried all the tricks -- False domestic violence allegations ... Dad beat the final restraining order. False child sexual abuse allegations ... Dad uncovered it early and stopped the unneeded therapy. Fabricated DYFS charges ... All unfounded. Dad was represented by a lawyer, but he stayed in control of negotiations instead of just letting the lawyer decide what to do. The parties agreed to a 50/50 custody arrangement very early in the case. The divorce was final today. Both parents share joint legal custody and shared physical custody of the child with neither parent designated the Parent of Primary Residence. We will provide more details when we can. Meanwhile, Dad is now another experienced FACE member, ready to help others.
Fathers' and Children's Equality, Inc. (FACE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, all volunteer, educational organization and support and self-help group for noncustodial parents and their families. We are not lawyers. We educate the public regarding our areas of interest pertaining to families. We educate our members as to their rights and responsibilities as parents, help them effectively represent themselves in court, and show them how to manage their own cases, regardless of whether or not they choose to use a lawyer.
Our areas of interest and expertise are:
- Services for male victims of domestic violence
- Where can family court litigants learn everything they need to know? Court employees will say "I can't give you legal advice." Some court employees are interested only in getting information from you to enforce orders, but won't give any information to you. The court's on-line pro se documents tell you how to file papers, but not what you need to write in those papers. The judge will say "I'm not your lawyer," and urge you to hire one. Your lawyer, as an "officer of the court," is sometimes prohibited from telling you everything you should know and, in some cases, will withhold information because it is not in his best interest for you to know too much. Advice on the internet is usually unreliable, incomplete or inapplicable. Your friends who have not been through family court will tell you the way they think things should be, or tell you what you want to hear. Where can you get the information you need?
That's where organizations like FACE come in. We are not lawyers, but we do have First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Expression, so there are no limitations on what we are allowed to tell you. We are just a group of family court litigants with hundreds of years of collective court experience helping other litigants. Some of us have represented ourselves in court, usually successfully. Some of us have just used what we learned to help us manage our cases and manage our lawyer/employees. Sure, we've made mistakes, but we've learned from them. You, too, can learn from our past experience and not make the same mistakes we did.
The best way to learn about FACE and what FACE does is to attend some of our meetings, and meet and network with some of our members and other contacts. Send your full name, full address including zip code, and phone number to info@facenj.org , and we'll add you to our emailing list. Please also tell us how you learned of FACE.
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Civil Right of similarly situated persons to band together, form a self-help group like FACE, assist each other with their common problems and legal issues, and/or hire or recommend lawyers to represent them, free of threat of being charged with Unauthorized Practice of Law. See: N.A.A.C.P. v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964).
Laws, court rules, court procedures and court customs are different from state to state. FACE is based in New Jersey. Our legal expertise is primarily in family court in New Jersey and, to a lesser degree, a few other nearby states. Although FACE welcomes all new members, we strongly suggest that you find and join and participate in a support group in the state that has jurisdiction in your case. If no such group exists in your state, we will welcome you to join FACE, and also recommend that you join one of the national noncustodial parents' rights groups. If you can't find such a group, contact FACE for referrals.
WHY we are
Fatherlessness impairs children's ability to learn. Fatherless children score lower on cognitive tests, and 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children are 40% more vulnerable to sickness and 30% more likely to be injured in an accident.
Children learn from their fathers to put limitations on their own behavior. There is a correlation within a community between the percentage of fatherless households and the rates of violent crime and burglary. Five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record are from homes where the father was absent. 60% of America's rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long term prison inmates grew up without fathers.
More than 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals are from fatherless homes, as are 75% of chemical addicted children, 90% of teenage runaways, and three out of four teenage suicides.
Fatherless adolescents, having grown up without healthy male role models, tend to make irresponsible decisions in their relationships with the opposite sex. Fatherless girls too often have difficulty distinguishing the difference between affection and sex, and account for 71% of teenage pregnancies. Adults raised without fathers are far less likely to ever develop a healthy, loving, long-term relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
No research exists showing that one parent is better than two, nor that sole custody of children offers benefits that joint legal and shared physical custody does not. Yet our family courts continue to ignore all of these facts. They "award" primary residential parent status to the mother in about 90% of cases, reduce their father to a "visitor" and a paycheck, and claim to have done so "in the best interest of the child."*
Children are not property to be owned nor prizes in a game. They are human beings. FACE supports every child's right to a full, loving, nurturing relationship with two parents, four grandparents, and all of the aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides of the family, regardless of the parents' marital status. This right to enjoy a parent-child relationship has been recognized as a Liberty Interest and upheld as a Civil Right by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The trend toward fatherlessness is destroying our families and the social fabric of our nation. Join FACE and find out what you can do to reverse it -- in our laws, in the courts, and in your family.
* Nowhere in the law is "in the best interest of the child" defined.
Who we are NOT
As you surf the web, you may find other websites that promise to solve all your family court problems and give you the information you need to "win"* your case. They say just send some money (usually a few hundred dollars or more) and they will send you a packet of documents containing winning strategies, or papers you can file to "restore your rights," or (for some more money) access to them as "legal consultants." Some will offer their services as "paralegals" and say they will write and file your papers, or maybe even present your case to the court for you.An envelope-full of photocopies of magazine articles and webpages from a stranger far away is not a solution. It's a SCAM, often perpetrated by an "organization" of only one person, who would take advantage of others in their moments of desperation or helplessness. New Jersey law does not recognize or authorize "paralegals" (except in certain circumstances, working for and under the direction of a licensed attorney). A non-lawyer who accepts money to prepare legal papers or represent you in New Jersey is committing the crime of Unauthorized Practice of Law(N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22), a crime of the fourth degree, and is subject to fines, incarceration and/or civil damages.THERE IS NO QUICK FIX; THERE IS NO MAGIC WAND. A satisfactory resolution to child custody and other family court issues takes education, proven winning strategies that have worked in your state, tenacity and vigilance. Deal only with legitimate support groups.* Actually, no one "wins" in family court -- not mom, not dad, not the children. The only winners in family court are the judges, the lawyers, the psychologists, the social workers, the child support workers, etc., etc. They are the only beneficiaries of the multi-billion dollar family destruction industry.Family Law Reform PACFACE is a grass-roots, all-volunteer organization. We operate with a very small budget. Although much of the change FACE supports and promotes involves family-friendly legislators being elected, family-friendly laws being enacted and some existing laws being changed, to protect and preserve our 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, FACE doesno lobbying.Under Internal Revenue Service regulations, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization remains eligible for tax-exempt status so long as "... no substantial part of the activities of [the organization] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)) ..." The "no substantial part" test is generally considered to be spending not more than 20% of its annual budget on lobbying. The IRS defines "lobbying" as "attempting to influence legislation or influence the outcome of an election."Some FACE members, acting individually as private citizens, may elect to exercise their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression by petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or supporting or opposing certain pieces of pending legislation, or supporting or opposing the election campaigns of certain candidates for political office. If they do this, such activity is completely independent of and unrelated to their membership in FACE.In the mid-1990s another New Jersey-based parents' and children's rights support group formed an independent political action committee (PAC) under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. This has evolved to become the Family Law Reform Political Action Committee (FLR-PAC). Unlike a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, a PAC's purpose is to influence legislation and the outcomes of elections. Although the PAC is tax-exempt,contributions to the PAC are not tax-exempt for the donor. Membership in the PAC is open to anyone who makes a modest annual non-tax-deductible donation. Individuals who would like to lobby or otherwise become politically active, but would be more comfortable working within a group, might consider joining FLR-PAC.FLR-PAC meets at central-New Jersey locations. For meeting times and locations, or to volunteer for FLR-PAC activities, contact Ed Kilbourne at ekilbourne@facenj.org .
FACE IS A SELF-HELP GROUP. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS. WE DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. WE CAN NOT AND DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE IN COURT. If you find a competent, capable lawyer who fully understands your and your children's rights, who is willing and able to tenaciously fight to secure those rights, who completely understands the facts in your case, and who you can afford to pay, you should hire that lawyer and seek that lawyer's advice. If you cannot find or afford to pay such a lawyer, we urge you to seek all available resources to aid yourself in securing these rights.
FACE Links are categorized as follows:
- New Jersey
- legal information
- legal reform groups
- custody evaluation
- other parent/child groups
- strike forces on false allegations
- women's links
- United States Department of Justice
- conspiracy and racketeering
- articles
- income tax information
- Elected NJ Legislators, Representatives
- New Jersey Legislature Home Page
- New Jersey Constitution
- New Jersey Legislature Permanent Statutes Database Searchable laws of the state of New Jersey.
- New Jersey Judiciary Homepage
- New Jersey Judiciary rules governing the courts On-line text of the rules of the court including
child support guidelines. - New Jersey Court Opinions Searchable New Jersey State Court Opinions courtesy of Rutgers Law School. Good for researching case law.
- New Jersey Law Network An excellent searchable research tool for New Jersey Law.
legal information
legal reform groups
custody evaluation
other parent/child groups
- http://www.childrensjustice.org/
- http://www.ncoff.gse.upenn.edu/
- http://www.fathering.org/
- http://www.familyfirst.org/
- http://fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/
- http://www.aacap.org/
- http://www.childtrends.org/
- http://www.humanbeams.com/difference/fathers.shtml
- http://www.azchildren.org/
- http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/
- http://www.health.org/hry/
- http://www.themenscenter.com/
- http://www.mensdefense.org
strike forces on false allegations
women's links
- http://www.parenttime.com/
- http://www.thirdage.com/cgi-bin/rd/aol/marybeth/980105-04.html
- http://www.iwf.org/news/000308.shtml
“Relationship Estrangement and Interference is a form of Domestic Violence using Psychological abuse.”
ReplyDelete~ Joan Kloth-Zanard of PAS Intervention.
www.pas-intervention.com
PAS Intervention stands for Parental Alienation Support and Intervention. It is an International Non-profit organization to End Child Abuse and Parental Alienation.
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?
Tort Remedies
ReplyDeleteThe traditional alternatives available have been ineffective in preventing the recurrence of Parenting Time violations. Non-custodial parents therefore have turned tort theories to recover damages from the custodial parent and to accomplish uninterrupted Parenting Time. The current trend suggests that the threat of financial liability will discourage a custodial parent from interfering with Parenting Time rights.
1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial parent brought suit for damages alleging that:
“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place between the (plaintiff and child).”
Id. at 433.
The Superior Court, Caledonia County, dismissed the complaint for failure to state of cause of action on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court of Vermont, however, found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case for outrageous conduct causing severe...
1. Right to a copy of the order to show cause alleging facts supporting the contempt charge.
2. Right to an explanation of the nature and the consequences of the proceedings.
3. Right to legal counsel and the right to have legal counsel appointed by the court if the individual is indigent.
4. Right to confront witnesses.
5. Right to present witnesses.
6. Right to have a transcript or record of the proceeding.
7. Right to appeal to an appropriate court.
Thank you so much for your comment! I know exactly how you feel as what you have described is what is happening to me. I decided to fight for my rights as a father but more importantly my daughter's right to be with her dad. It was a tough decision to decide to fight in court especially when my daughter's mother and her attorney unethically decided to gain an upper hand in the paternity case that I filed by comitting perjury, deceiveing the Court and Judge and by making false allegations of domestic violence against me. I spent a great deal of money (but 3 x less than my daughter's mother spent on legal fees) and time in this case and so I can understand your reluctance to fight in court for your daughter's rights. Up to now I still have not gained access to my daughter but I have all the proof that I need that I've fought for her and I have proof that her mother is wrong in all the actions that she has taken to keep her from me. You see my daughter's mother was raised without a father and was led to believe by her her own mother (my daughter's grandmother) that she didn't need her father. Although it was very admirable that her mother (my daughter's maternal grandmother) was able to raise three kids without their dad she is also to blame for what is called "generational shame." Look up the topic "generational shame. I have not given up and my intention is on breaking this horrible history because I don't want my own daughter to grow up to be like her mother and grandmother. You'd think that a child that was raised without a father (my daughter's mother) would like to break the "generational" chains that bind her and make sure that her own child/ren don't suffer as she and her siblings did by not having a father around. And that is exactly what my daughter's mother told me before we broke-up..."that she didn't want to raise our daughter alone." However she has received very bad advise both from her own family and her lawyer Another important factor is that I was there when my daughter was born and for the first 2 1/2 years of her life and therefore my daughter knows who I am and knows that I love her very much. So you can go either way and fight or not but just make sure that you do everything possible to be in your daughter's life. This will help your daughter with her own future relationships. Please see the article and videos below called "Dear Daddy" and notice that these women admit that they needed their fathers. The psychological damage that you're referring too is inevitable whether you fight for your daughter or not. Do all you can to remain in your daughter's life regardless of what the mother wants. Your daughter will appreciate that in the future.
ReplyDeletePRO 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."