Wednesday

Non Custodial Parents Rights - A Civil Rights Issue

Fighting For Parents' Rights

Help the Fight - America we need to stop the One-Parent Fight arising in this Country.
Our Children are being destroyed because of Parents Rights being Neglected and Parent Alienation.

Do your Part Unite and Write!!!!

Print and Send to as many Government Offices and State Representatives as you can and keep us informed on your quest. We need to repair "Family Values". Just because parents are not together does not mean they can not work together!
Post by Children's Rights.

Notes by Non Custodial Parents Rights

President Barrack ObamaAll Members of CongressThe Supreme Court of the United StatesRE: Non-Custodial Parental Rights


I am writing to you to demand change on an epidemic that is destroying families, fathers, and children right here in Country.

Simply put, the Family Court system as it now exists has stripped fathers of their rights to be a part of their children's lives. Instead, fathers have turned into financial pumps, living in constant fear of being dragged back into court by their ex-wives and victimized yet again. 

I could give you countless examples of fathers who have been victimized. Im not referring to the deadbeat dad types who leave their ex-wives and children living in the streets. I am talking about hard working, tax paying, child-loving fathers who live for their children. The ones who had their children stripped from them for the simple reason of their ex-wife deciding that she just no longer wanted to be married. The ones who are allowed to see their children for 4 days a month. The ones who are allowed to see their children for a few weeks over the summer. The ones who are required to pay astronomical amounts of child support, often putting themselves in a situation where they barely can afford to live. These are the fathers that are relying on the judges, lawyers, and Legislators to help reform the system. This system has created a society of fatherless children and childless fathers. 
This system has created its own life through a judicial system that exists on misery to feed itself. This system violates their Constitutional Rights to Due process, Equal Protection under the Laws, and Privacy. I would like to call your attention to the February 25th, 2002 ruling by C. Dane Perkins, Superior Court Judge of the Georgia Alapaha Judicial Circuit. Judge Perkins declared the Georgia Child Support Guidelines (which were adopted guidelines from Wisconsin which almost all states use) void and unconstitutional in his ruling based on the above Constitutional Violations. Due Process The United States Constitution provides that NO State may deprive any person of life, liberty or poverty without due process of law. In almost all states, presumptive child support awards rise as a share of obligor (paying parent) income. NO child cost studies show child costs rising as a share of after-tax income. ALL child cost studies show child costs declining as a share of the after-tax income. In most cases, especially in higher income situations, the presumptive child support results in a significantly higher obligation than one bases on actual child costs that decline as a share of net income. In Parrett v. Parrett (1988, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin), the court found that, particularly in higher income situations, the presumptive child support amount would result in a figure so far beyond the child’s needs as to be irrational. This is the very sort of result the Due Process clauses are designed to prevent.

Equal Protection The United States Constitution provides that NO State may deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The court found that the egregiously different burdens placed on persons similarly situated but for the award of custody, i.e., parents with the obligation to support their child(ren) and the same means for doing so as when they were married violates the guarantees of equal protection. Finding of Fact in the ruling further address this issue. Tax Benefits The court points out that custodial parents typically receive $200 to $350 per month in extra after-tax income just for having custody. 
These child-related tax benefits include Head of Household status, Child exemptions, child credits, childcare credits, and Earned Income credits. Wisconsin either does not include these credits in child support calculations or they are grossly understated. The court found that not sharing these child-related tax benefits violates equal protection.
Financial Windfall The presumptive child care award typically results in the custodial parent receiving huge financial windfall (profit) well in excess of childcare costs. For typical income situations, the custodial parent ends up with a higher standard of living than the non-custodial parent. This is the case even when the non-custodial parent earns significantly more than the custodial parent. This represents an extraordinary benefit for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden for the obligator. 
This violates equal protection. In addition, when combined with the tax benefits discussed above, the outcome is that the custodial parent does not contribute to the child costs at the same rate the non-custodial parent and, often, not at all. Hidden Alimony The court found that, in essence, the child support obligation amounted to hidden alimony. These hidden alimony amounts were so excessive that a non-custodial parent is oftentimes unable to provide for the child (ren) when in the non-custodial parents care to the same extent as in the custodial parents household. 
Presumptive awards have been shown to typically exceed total actual costs according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This violates equal protection standards for both the child and the non-custodial parent. In addition, this bias towards hidden alimony exists even when the custodial parent earns substantially higher income than the non-custodial parent. Low Income below Poverty Line The presumptive award for low-income obligors (minimum wage workers) pushes them below the poverty line. An award that leaves the obligator with less income than needed for basic needs creates an extraordinary burden. This violates equal protection. 
Privacy 
The source of the right to privacy has been held to originate in varying constitutional provisions. However, it has been long recognized to apply to family concerns whether the family exists within the confines of marriage or not. (Eisenstadt v. Baird (1973)). The court found that by requiring the non-custodial parent to pay an amount in excess of those required to meet the child(rens) basic needs...(the child support amount) impermissible interfere(s) with parental decisions regarding financial expenditures on children. The government’s interest in family expenditures on children is limited to insuring that the child(rens) basic needs are met. Not extravagances, not luxuries, but needs. Once that occurs, government intrusion must cease (Moylan v. Moylan). In addition, the court found that the presumptive child support is so excessive that it forces non-custodial parents to frequently work extra jobs for basic needs. This creates an extraordinary burden for the obligor and, potentially, an additional burden on taxpayers. It is also distracting the non-custodial parent from parenting fully without justification. This violates equal protection. 
This is contrary both to public policy and common sense. Any government mandate beyond basic child costs interferes with the right to privacy. 
Equal Rights 
The Guidelines do not take into account the custodial parents income. The presumptive child support awards do not vary with family income--only obligor income. The custodial parent is not held to the same standard for contributing to child costs. In most cases, the custodial parents obligation of support ends up being largely or entirely paid by the non-custodial parent. The custodial parents income has no bearing on the amount of child support the non-custodial parent is ordered to pay. There is no formula in place that can determine how the custodial parents income affects the presumptive award. This is not economically rational and violates equal protection. 
Child costs of only the custodial parent are covered by the Guidelines. Costs incurred when the child(ren) is in the non-custodial parents care i.e. housing, food, clothing, entertainment and other needs for the child(ren) do not receive similar consideration. Yet, parents are similarly situated when child(ren) costs are incurred by either parent. 
Each parent has an equal duty to provide financially for the child(ren) when in the care of the other parent. These Guidelines where based on welfare situations in which the obligor parent was absent, and the custodial parent did not work and had no earned income, and did not take into account the custodial parent receiving large child- related tax benefits, and did not take into account the obligor paying substantial income taxes. However, in actual practice, typically the non-custodial parent is not absent and incurs substantial child costs that the Guidelines do not require the custodial parent to contribute. This violates equal protection and does not meet the financial needs of the child(ren) when they are in the care of the non-custodial parent. The Guidelines do not require that the custodial parent share in the costs of the non-custodial parent. The Guideline criteria for deviation do not give any guidance on how to apply the deviations in a consistent manner. 
This is unconstitutionally vague and generally results in no deviations in most cases, even when the circumstances to deviate exist. We need to do more to make sure both parents are fully involved in the raising of their children, particularly fathers - Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson October 22nd, 1999- Right here in our country, our homeland where we feel justified in wanting to raise our Child(ren) are we being stripped of our Constitutional Rights. We, as parents have a fundamental right to assume equal periods of placement of our children, unless there is credible evidence that a parent is not fit, that placement would be harmful to the child(ren). This right is fundamental; not that one parent must win as a result of lengthy, intrusive and costly legal battle, or compromised simply to reach a stipulated agreement to avoid a battle.

The Due Process and Equal protection provision of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution suggest the fundamental rights of both parents must be treated equally. It also points out the constitution and the laws of the United States..... Shall be the supreme law of the land; and that judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 
The courts responsibility to support these fundamental rights are further established; Every person Elected or appointed justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the circuit court or municipal judge, shall take, subscribe and file the following oath: I,.... Do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of..... In practice, partly due to historical societal roles of parents and statistics on court rulings, there is an unwritten presumption that the mother gets custody and primary placement of the children and the father pays child support to the mother. 
While this presumption is not defined anywhere in the statutes, and is contrary to equality and the equal protection provision of the 14th amendment, it is very real. The net result is that the legal process treats a mother as innocent until proven guilty, and a father guilty until proven innocent. In light of this presumption, in cases involving two fit parents, the equal fundamental rights of the mother is usually fully supported, while the equal fundamental right of the father is subject to negotiation and compromise. As in many cases, fathers who merely want to fulfill their responsibilities to the child(ren) by providing for their care during equal periods of placement are often forced to accept 20-40\% placement or endure a lengthy, intrusive and costly legal battle. 
This violates the civil rights of those fathers who are encouraged, coerced or threatened to agree to stipulated agreements that deny them equal periods of placement against their will and denies the children the opportunity to an equally important relationship with their father. We are relying on our Courts to stop this egregious violation of Constitutional Rights and start giving us our rights back. We are relying on the courageous lawmakers to address this epidemic and stop the further deterioration of fathers, families, and children.

Is The Playing Field  Level For Men In The Family Court System?

Why Do Moms Have All The Power In Family Court?


10 comments:

  1. Children's Bill of Rights

    WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER

    Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn't forget -- and kids shouldn't let them -- when the family is in the midst of a break-up.

    You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn't feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It's important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.

    You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can't work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.

    You're entitled to all the feelings you're having. Don't be embarrassed by what you're feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you're allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.

    You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone -- either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.

    You don't belong in the middle of your parents' break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you're just a kid, and that you can't handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it's their fight, not yours.

    Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.

    You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn't worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.

    IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON'T BLAME YOURSELF.

    ----Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998

    "Children's Bill of Rights" is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 - 2001. All rights reserved. "Children's Bill of Rights" may be reproduced under the following conditions:

    It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.

    © 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614

    The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
    http://www.aamlflorida.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.tentips

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PRO SE RIGHTS:
      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."

      Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

      Delete
  2. I am a Non-Custodial parent and I am the mother. I stand in total agreement that our children need and deserve to have BOTH parents in their lives. (Unless of course there is any sort of danger to the child from one parent or the other, then arrangements need to be made to keep that child safe from harm.) I have been fighting against PA since 2006 and just recently have had my 12 year son back in my life. Even now I still feel the pangs of PA because of the Custodial parent. He calls every week threatening to send our son away if I don't come get him. (Our son has ADHD and has violent episodes, which the father blames solely on me.) The last time we went to court the Judge more or less told me and my son (who spoke to the Judge in chambers, expressing his desire to come live with me because "My mom loves and takes of me, she takes time to be with me and do things with me" these are my son's words, spoken and written in a letter to the Judge), Also proving that the Custodial parent was unstable, being that he had been evicted from 3 different places in less than a years time, due to non-payment of rent, moving from state to state , while our son was sleeping on floors, in vehicles or the same bed with his father and whatever women he brought back to where ever they were staying at the time. While I own my own home, work full-time and our son has his own room, with his own bed in my home. The Judge said that I did not have sufficient evidence and dismissed my Modification of Child Custody. So now back at square one with the Custodial parent taunting me and our son, threatening to send him away if I don't come get him. Even lawyers that I have spoke with are baffled by this Judges dismissal of my case. So now I start all over again filing Motions, gathering witnesses, so forth and so on. The only thing that has changed is the fact I am no longer fighting in the original county where this all started back in 2006. I can say thank you to the Judge for dismissing my case for that ray of hope in this bleak situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumptive Best Interest of Child and Equal Time-Sharing

      There is no question that our family law statutes need to be reformed and that there is a great deal of "judicial discretion" in family law matters. Often times, the outcome of your case depends more on the judge that you have been assigned than the facts of your particular case. If you were to have your case in front of one judge, the outcome may be very different if you were to have your case in front of a different judge. The legislature is trying to change that, in particular when it comes to time-sharing with children. There are changes to alimony as well that I will address in a later blog, but I wanted my readers to be aware of the changes that are being proposed for time-sharing because it is substantial. If the Bill passes, there will now be a presumption that equal (50/50) time-sharing is in a child's best interest, with very limited exceptions. The exceptions would be in the nature of real harm to a child that a parent is incarcerated, a parent is unfit, or the parent's geographical distance would hinder the ability for a 50/50 time-sharing schedule to work. If this passes and is signed into law, most families would be automatically forced into a 50/50 timesharing arrangement if one party were to want that. I have had plenty of cases in the past and some cases right now where one parent does not want an equal time-sharing schedule for a variety of different reasons. Some reasons are valid; some reasons are not valid enough to take the issue before the Court. With this new law, if it is passed, every family will be forced into a 50/50 schedule provided that one parent is requesting it. We do a lot of 50/50 time-sharing arrangements and have had a Judge rule many times that 50/50 is what a couple is going to have, but there are many families who want to alter or adjust this schedule after the final hearing because the schedule is simply not working. Absent a substantial and permanent change of circumstances, couples are going to be stuck with these schedules, regardless of whether or not it’s "working". I agree with the idea that if we have a presumption that 50/50 is in the children's best interest, there will be less room for argument and people would have to acquiesce on this issue. Taking any argument off the table that 50/50 is not good because a parent simply doesn't want it will help insure that less litigation ensues over "best interest of the children". However, what I don't agree with is that we should take the approach of "one size fits all" when it comes to dealing with children. It'll be interesting to see how this develops and if you have issue with this potential law, I urge you to contact your representative. By Christine Bauer - A Florida Family Law Attorney
      Posted FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013

      Delete
  3. "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 about their 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's comment on: https://www.causes.com/causes/409526/updates/791783

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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?

    What 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?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Florida Judge & Lawyer Complaints

    How to file complaints against Florida Family Law Judges and Family Law Lawyers?

    Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against Judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint to the JQC about the Florida Family Law Judge with sufficient documentation.

    Florida Family Law Judge Complaints
    Write to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
    http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
    Florida Family Law Judicial Complaint
    Mailing Address
    Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC)
    1110 Thomasville Road
    Tallahassee, FL 32303
    Telephone
    850-488-1581

    All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state Supreme Court. Complaints in Florida can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to The Florida Bar.

    Florida Family Law Lawyer Complaints
    The Florida Bar handles complaints about family law lawyers in Florida.
    Mailing Address
    The Florida Bar
    651 E. Jefferson Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
    Telephone
    850-561-5600

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Friends,

    One in six Americans know someone who has been falsely accused of domestic violence. The silver bullets in divorce, false allegations are sometimes used to obtain child custody. This despicable act removes fit and loving parents from the lives of their children.

    Please take a moment, as soon as possible, and speak out for the millions of children who are missing a falsely accused parent. And do it for the parents who are grieving for their children, stolen with a lie.

    Find your senators here:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    Take note of their party affiliation and phone number.

    If your senator is a Republican, call, and ask them to support Sen. Grassley's Substitute Amendment to VAWA.

    If your senator is a Democrat, call, and ask them to demand changes to Sen. Leahy's VAWA (S. 1925), to curb false allegations of domestic violence.

    Do it For the Children, Stolen with a Lie

    Thank you for taking a stand for affected families everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    The 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."

    ReplyDelete
  8. FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
    Written 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.

    ReplyDelete

Take Action Now!

Children's Rights Florida

Florida Family Law Reform

Family Law Community

Search This Blog

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

Abuse (7) Abuse of power (1) Abuse of process (5) Admission to practice law (3) Adversarial system (83) Advocacy group (3) African American (1) Alienator (1) Alimony (7) All Pro Dad (1) All rights reserved (1) Allegation (2) Alliance for Justice (2) American Civil Liberties Union (3) American Psychological Association (1) Americans (2) Anecdotal evidence (2) Anti-discrimination law (1) Arrest (1) Bar association (1) Best interests (42) Bill (law) (1) British Psychological Society (1) Broward County (1) Broward County Public Schools (2) Brown University (1) Catholic Church (1) Center for Public Integrity (2) Chief judge (26) Child Abuse (48) Child custody (78) Child development (6) Child neglect (2) Child protection (15) Child Protective Services (19) Child Support (64) Children (3) Children's Rights (83) Christine Lagarde (1) Christmas (3) Circuit court (3) Civil and political rights (14) Civil law (common law) (1) Civil liberties (9) Civil Rights (145) Civil rights movement (1) Class action (1) Communist Party of Cuba (1) Confidentiality (1) Constitutional law (1) Constitutional right (5) Contact (law) (11) Contempt of court (4) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1) Coparenting (28) Copyright (1) Copyright infringement (1) Corruption (1) Court Enabled PAS (92) Court order (2) Cuba (1) Cuban Missile Crisis (1) Cuban Revolution (1) Custodial Parent (1) Declaratory judgment (3) Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact (110) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2) Divorce (124) Divorce Corp (6) Divorce Court (1) Documentary (25) Domestic Violence (51) Dr. Stephen Baskerville (5) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1) DSM-5 (1) DSM-IV Codes (1) Due Process (45) Due Process Clause (1) Dwyane Wade (1) Easter (1) Equal-time rule (2) Ethics (1) Events (10) Exposé (group) (1) Facebook (19) Fair use (1) False accusation (4) False Accusations (57) Family (1) Family (biology) (2) Family Court (198) Family Law (113) Family Law Reform (119) Family Rights (87) Family therapy (10) Father (12) Father figure (2) Father's Day (1) Father's Rights (12) Fatherhood (106) Fatherlessness Epidemic (4) Fathers 4 Justice (3) Fathers' rights movement (46) Fidel Castro (1) Florida (214) Florida Attorney General (7) Florida Circuit Courts (19) florida lawyers (30) Florida Legislature (6) Florida Senate (11) Foster care (1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1) Fraud (1) Free Speech (1) Freedom of speech (1) Frivolous litigation (1) Fundamental rights (12) Gainesville (1) Gender equality (1) Government Accountability Project (2) Government interest (2) Grandparent (3) Havana (1) Healthy Children (14) Human Rights (119) Human rights commission (1) I Love My Daughter (56) I Love My Son (8) Injunction (1) Innocence Project (1) Investigative journalism (1) Jason Patric (2) JavaScript (1) Joint custody (8) Joint custody (United States) (16) Judge (5) Judge Judy (7) Judge Manno-Schurr (55) Judicial Accountability (103) Judicial Immunity (7) Judicial misconduct (8) Judicial Reform (3) Judicial Watch (2) Judiciary (3) Jury trial (1) Kids for cash scandal (1) Law (2) Lawsuit (9) Lawyer (8) Legal Abuse (150) Liar Joel Greenberg (16) Linda Gottlieb (1) Litigant in person (1) Little Havana (1) Marriage (6) Matt O'Connor (1) Men's rights movement (1) Mental disorder (1) Mental health (2) Meyer v. Nebraska (1) Miami (44) Miami-Dade County (8) Miami-Dade County Public Schools (1) Miscarriage of justice (42) Mother (4) Motion of no confidence (1) Movie (4) Music (8) Nancy Schaefer (1) National Fatherhood Initiative (1) Natural and legal rights (1) News (89) Nixa Maria Rose (16) Non-governmental organization (1) Noncustodial parent (4) Organizations (60) Palm Beach County (1) Parent (35) Parental Alienation (116) Parental alienation syndrome (15) Parental Rights (36) Parenting (12) Parenting plan (6) Parenting time (7) Parents' rights movement (38) Paternity (law) (1) Personal Story (22) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1) Pope (1) Posttraumatic stress disorder (27) President of Cuba (1) Pro Se (30) Pro se legal representation in the United States (3) Prosecutor (1) Protest (1) Psychological manipulation (1) Psychologist (1) Public accommodations (1) Public Awareness (108) Raúl Castro (1) Re-Post/Re-Blog (12) Research (1) Restraining order (4) Rick Scott (12) Second-class citizen (1) Self Representation-Pro Se (31) Sexism (1) Sexual abuse (2) Sexual assault (1) Shared Parenting (92) Single parent (6) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1) Social Issues (59) Social Media (1) Spanish (8) Stand Up For Zoraya (47) State school (1) Student (1) Supreme Court of Florida (8) Supreme Court of the United States (5) Tampa (1) Testimony (23) Thanksgiving (2) The Florida Bar (10) The Good Men Project (1) Trauma (4) Troxel v. Granville (2) True Story (21) Turner v. Rogers (1) United States (26) United States Congress (1) United States Constitution (1) United States Department of Justice (4) Videos (51) Violence Against Women Act (1) Whistle-blower (3)