STOP THE HEARTBREAK JUDGE MANNO-SCHURR ~~ 11th Judicial Circuit Family Court... http://bit.ly/1VBlVaG
Posted by David Inguanzo on Monday, October 5, 2015
Happy Birthday Zoraya!Stand Up For Zoraya
Posted by David Inguanzo on Sunday, August 2, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, October 5, 2015
When things go wrong as they sometimes will;
When the road you're trudging seems all uphill;
When the funds are low, and the debts are high;
And you want to smile, but you have to sigh;
When care is pressing you down a bit
Rest if you must, but don't you quit.
Success is failure turned inside out;
The silver tint of the clouds of doubt;
And you can never tell how close you are;
It may be near when it seems afar.
So, stick to the fight when you're hardest hit
It's when things go wrong that you mustn't quit.
If you think you are beaten, you are.
If you think you dare not, you don't.
If you like to win but think you can't,
It's almost a cinch you won't.
If you think you'll lose, you're lost.
For out in the world we find
Success begins with a fellow's will.
It's all in the state of mind.
If you think you are out classed, you are.
You've got to think high to rise.
You've got to be sure of your-self before
You can ever win the prize.
Life's battles don't always go
To the stronger or faster man.
But sooner or later, the man who wins
Post by The Love And Iron Project.
Let Not Our Christmas Be Conquered
Barely 19-year-old Heather Kent, a young woman who escaped from her alienating parent's household at 16, has a YouTube video AND a blog named "I AM Invictus."
"Invictus" is Latin for "unconquerable."
On Ms. Kent's blog is the subtitle:
These are lines of an old English poem named "Invictus."
 |
Father-son poem: A Separation
FatherMag.com Home Page - 41 minutes ago
A warm embrace, Perhaps more than one. A touch, A touch to say I am O.K. A look, A look to say, Maybe, Just maybe, I am the son, The son he always wanted.
|
6,965 people have joined the campaign - December 2013
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.
Post by David Inguanzo.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
ReplyDeleteSelf-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one's due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case's outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly -- with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain "paid" access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
WE SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR EQUAL JUSTICE
Activist sometimes exhibit impatience with theory - often for good reasons. They have seen nonviolence caught in an ideological net in which the purity of ideology eclipsed activity and the nonviolent effort was undermined by a deflection of energy. But nonviolent theory is absolutely necessary. It introduces to the world a new strategy for resisting evil without creating new evils and becoming evil ourselves. But more important, it articulates a new way of being that yields a vision of peace more powerful than all the armies of all the nations of the world. (Peace is the Way, 2000)
Review from the late Carl Fredrich, founder of the American Pro Se Association
Delete2012 ~
" "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.)
Why We Do What We Do
DeleteWe are tired of being victims of our own justice system; paying outrageous attorney fees, and still receiving substandard service. In addition, even when we can afford an attorney, we often become victims of our attorney's greed, laziness or incompetence.
For every case that goes to litigation, 50% of the attorneys will lose their case, so right off the bat if we hire an attorney we only have a 50-50 chance of winning our case. We have come to realize that an attorney can never be as passionate about our case as we are, and when you factor in attorney greed, laziness or incompetence, and judicial corruption, then the chances of us being satisfied with the outcome our case is far below the 50-50 ratio. So, why should we pay exorbitant fees for an outcome that has a higher probability of yielding a dissatisfactory outcome than yielding a satisfactory one? What other industry in the world can get away with charging $225 an hour while having such horrific odds of yielding a result that their client is satisfied with? None that we can think of.
In addition, we believe that for purposes of job security and other greedy reasons, pro se litigants' rights are constantly trampled, by the very people entrusted to uphold or fight vigorously to protect our rights.
The character and quality of the American Justice System has eroded. Pro-se Litigants are routinely discouraged and denied rights. Pro-se litigants receive no respect -- and yet are held to higher standards than attorneys. Corruption is as blatant as a Court Clerk manipulating the record to a Judge issuing a ruling that is designed to intentionally block a pro-se litigant's access to justice.
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."
“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…”
ReplyDelete~ 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
By Darby Jay @ Target Children Parents Relatives Society
ReplyDelete"I am a father...Not a deadbeat...Not a coward...Not a man that runs away from being a father, or a deserter of my own flesh and blood. Not a sperm donor or a court appointed ATM, but a Father in the purest form of the word. And while choosy “Moms choose Jif”; I sit, at 3:05 am holding the hot hands of a sick 7 year old princess. But that’s my job. Because...I am a Father.
I would speak to my daughter while she was in utero. She would respond with little kicks and from the womb...we interacted, and hadn’t even seen each other yet. When you immediately accept that, even before your child takes its first breath, you are already a Father; you immediately begin to bond with your child. (I am a Father)
The Family Law Court System as a whole, and it’s Judges, destroy the lives of children and in turn entire families by violating a Father’s right to "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" under the law. But we’ve known that for decades. Anyone that thinks or believes that there is "Due Process" for Fathers in the Family Law Court System should be placed in a padded room and heavily sedated. Why is it ok for Fathers to miss their children? Why is it ok for a Father to be sick and wrapped in worry? Why is it permissible for “Non Custodial” parents to start legal proceedings at an immediate disadvantage? Why is there no legislation in place to safeguard Fathers that are being swept in amid the men that make us all look bad? We are judged before the first hearing? It physically hurts on days (that) I don’t have my daughter with me. “DEPRESSION HURTS!” as the commercial for anti-depressants says...right? (It hurts because...I am a Father.)
Ask yourself, what parent wouldn’t be stressed sleepless concerned about their child? Therefore forcing time away from a parent and child would reasonably cause a great deal of stress and worry.. .to truly say the least. But the Family Law Court (and) its Judges are far from reasonable. Now, just imagine that you’re sitting at your desk at work, and two armed Sheriffs approach the receptionist’s desk, then your intercom buzzes, and you are then summoned to the front desk The Sheriff asks you for your name. And then politely informs you that you have been served with child support papers. And that’s just the beginning. Keep in mind that you are the same father that went through the entire pregnancy, CPR classes, ultrasounds, the Birth...ya know Dad stuff. For the record, (a sidebar really); Any man that has stood side by side, each day and night for nine months with a hormonal, morning, noon and night vomiting, habitual mood swinger knows that Fathers don’t exactly have it easy during a nine month pregnancy either. Weather you are an amazing Father, or a deadbeat looser, Family Law Court will filter your life through Hell all the same. I am a Father.
With no criminal record, never been arrested, no history of violence, domestic or other; At what point did I ask to be Non-Custodial.? There is nothing “Non-Custodial” about me! I have never needed a Court's Order to care for my Daughter. Since when have I not been a Father? I clinch my fist and grit my teeth while, the very system set in place to protect our families not only fatally fails, but spits in my face and violates my rights." (I AM A FATHER!)
"There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." -Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York, New York
"What Social Services is good at is removing "Power" from people. When this is accomplished, then there go choices." -Mr. Sharles Johnson
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?
Presumptive Best Interest of Child and Equal Time-Sharing
ReplyDeleteThere 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
Our message to the Legal Community
ReplyDeleteWe have had enough! We will follow the rules of the system, but we now demand that you follow those same rules. If you conduct yourself with honesty and integrity, then we have no qualms with you. But if you are one of the corrupt, overpriced, lazy or incompetent members of the legal community; we will shine a spotlight on you. Every blunder, every unjust ruling, every dirty trick you've ever played, every incompetent, unethical act will be broadcast to the public. Every case you handle will be publicly scrutinized until you make right the lives you have ruined or you are out of business, whichever comes first.
We are not afraid to call you out! We are not afraid to picket in front of your law offices or any place where you present yourself as a respectable, credible, trustworthy member of society, which you are not. We are not afraid to boycott you; and we will not be intimidated by defamation or any other type of lawsuit or harassment techniques that you cook up.
Despite our disgust at the corruption that has overtaken our justice system, we will treat you more fairly than you've treated us, so we do not need to defame you. If we put a spotlight on you, you have already defiled yourself. We will simply convict you in the Court of Public Opinion using your own words and deeds.
And we will leave it to the public to sentence you. Loss of business, respect, credibility, standing on the Bench or in the Bar, or denial of political advancement are what we predict the sentence will and should be.
THE BENEFITS
We provide benefit to pro-se litigants through our services; to the legal community by pointing out and providing solutions to corruption and inefficiencies in the system (so that you may fix them) and we provide benefit to society by facilitating an alternative for aggrieved people -- who without equal access to the law -- may take justice into their own hands -- as vigilantes. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interest that pro-se litigants be treated with respect, and fairly.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten 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.
"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.