What happens in Florida when visitation rights are unreasonably denied?
"This is not a question of fathers' or mothers' rights; it is about protecting the rights of children to have two loving parents fully involved in their lives wherever possible, to the benefit of the children, their families, and wider society,"
Professional Compliance Bureau (PCB) Major Shimminger conducted a PCB investigation on the reporting officer but failed to properly investigate false police report by woman/mother who fabricated an incident of domestic violence.
The MDPD never contacted the father about the alleged incident which the mother reported 26 hours later. The mother obtained an "information only" police report in which the mother and her attorney used later in a biased (man-hater) judge's DV courtroom of Honorable Victoria Brennen. Mother violated Florida Statutes 741 and 837 and the MDPD did nothing!
The father, upon finding a police report existed that was false, he filed a police report against the mother for making a false police report and spoke to Captain Bollinger-Heller about it...she suggested he should just "let this go". She also referred him to an MDPD victim's advocate. The father sent a complete, clear, and concise report back to the MDPM Major Herrera of the Domestic Crimes Bureau requesting further investigation.
 |
Judge Victoria R. Brennan |
4-3-2009
We can provide all the documents, police reports, and case numbers if interested in pursuing this case.
The father also contacted State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundel on 3 occasions only to be referred back to the MDPD. The corresponded directly with the now retired Director Loftus who referred him to his subordinates, Major Shimminger and Major Herrera. The father still battles these false allegations until today.
A family justice system shake-up giving children legal rights to maintain relationships with both parents after separation has been criticized by the man who chaired a review of the rules.
"This is not a question of fathers' or mothers' rights; it is about protecting the rights of children to have two loving parents fully involved in their lives wherever possible, to the benefit of the children, their families, and wider society,"
"This is not a question of fathers' or mothers' rights; it is about protecting the rights of children to have two loving parents fully involved in their lives wherever possible, to the benefit of the children, their families, and wider society,"
How Parental Alienation Syndrome Brainwashes the Child
Posted by Children's Rights on Friday, September 4, 2015
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Friday, August 28, 2015
Childrens Rights Florida — 1 star
I wish you well and hope you know that you’re not at
all alone. Life can give us skills whether we want them or not. In time, every
father facing custody and court cases involving family law will develop a
'thicker skin' as we all know that nothing is more personal then an attack
against your human rights, your rights as a parent and your ability to parent a
child.I would like to express a very important concept today. This is extremely bold and progressive. I believe their is no 'movements' in the world today to change the opinion of culture in the way that will actually build up momentum. I would like to give you an example. (the example is not aimed to defame or harm homosexual couples in any way, simply a random example.)
Single Male parents seeking Equality in Custody and Family law is NOT.
Who do you believe will be the first to win Public approval in the equality of raising children?
A large portion of Society will back gay rights to have two males or two females raise a child... Will Society recognize the human rights of a Male parent to have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY in custody decisions or family court? The reason behind this is because Gay rights do not threaten the power of women as much as the concept ' MAN VS WOMAN '
When I started to think about this in depth, I realized that all the titles 'Fathers rights' are actually a way of setting yourself apart from the majority of people who are actually in favor in society and doing more work to make and change laws. You can go out in your yard and wave a giant flag 'TEAM MEN!' then go into society against 'team women' and see how big the teams are...
The real team we should all be one is ' TEAM EQUALITY FOR PARENTS ' using Human rights and a 'gender-less' approach to rights as a parent. This way you are not allowing society to put you on the small team. You are a parent... the same way you are a Human (EQUAL). Many arguments are made based on age and gender. 'for the best interests of the child' should NEVER be used as a justification to disregard the rights of a parent. The best interests of a child is just a term that was created by a person, made popular in litigation and put into law as a strong tactic to redirect focus and manipulate the overall outcome of a case. A 4 year old is NOT going to remember being taken away from his/her mother in the same respects as a parent that loses his/her child. Day to day memories, complex thought process, life and all that we as adults have to do to live is drastically effected and sometimes destroyed by the term 'in the best interests of the child'. A child’s best interest is Equality & Human rights. In fact.. you.. yes you.. reading this.. were you a child? Are you suffering loss right now? are you hurting? do you see a broken legal system that effects you because your gender? Are you best interest still important to the court? NO...
In the BEST interest of Human Rights and Equality, as a parent, I advocate on the equal rights of a child and parents to eliminate any gender bias or popular cultural opinions about any parent. In law and to the world I am a Human and parent first... Do not judge me by my gender.
Human rights are LAW, public policy guides local and federal laws through a general cultural opinion that develops in popular media and different 'movements' in society. People (yes.. just people...) will lobby and push concepts on our government to enact laws that limit our human rights, this is not legal, but worded so ambiguously it is not correlated to its violation of our basic human rights until intense litigation and logical arguments are made and no one seems to argue it when its enacted.
There are NO special exceptions to Equality. Human rights are the same for all Human beings with NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION for gender, age or race.
You must treat the disease, not the symptoms.
This overall message is critical, but I have still seen people waving the wrong flag. Yes it is glorious but you’re on the small weak team that is going to get stomped out, you have seen it... it’s not helping. The overall picture is human rights, parental rights. When you go into court, try making a point to keep yourself from defining yourself on the team that is not popular or favored in society. Proudly claim yourself as a parent without defining yourself as a man. This needs to be common practice in family law. All references to gender in ALL forms of law need to be ELIMINATED.
This is going to be a movement eventually... let’s start one.
False Allegations Hurt Children!
“When you are falsely accused (and intentionally for that matter) the pain can be crippling at times. That aside; I wish people cared about what their false allegations would do to the children involved. Even with the pain I suffered and the meds I now have to take on a daily basis, I would have given my life to take my children’s pain and fear of being taken from me away.” — Sara
The criminal behavior which has been “civilized” by Family Court Act Article 8 is defined in the penal laws. This is a crucial aspect to determine whether or not a family offense petition makes out a prima facia case, and is too often overlooked when defending against a family offense petition. Many practitioners look solely to whether or not the alleged actions occurred. More importantly, a judge is supposed to look at whether or not the petitioner can prove all the necessary elements of the family offense alleged and defined in the penal laws. Each of the family offenses requires that the petitioner allege and prove intent or recklessness or a repeated course of conduct. A few of the family offenses require a prior such offense conviction.
The allegations in the family offense petition must be composed of the evidentiary facts that establish each element of the specific family offense being charged. In People v. Dumas, the court of appeals held that mere conclusory allegations in the petition are not sufficient. The petition cannot be based upon heresay either. To be able to determine if the petitioner meets the burden of presenting a prima facia case, the respondent should demand a bill of particulars. In People v. Hall, the court of appeals held that the bill of particulars must also constitute reasonable cause to believe the respondent committed the charged offense, or the petition must be dismissed. In People v. Alejandro, the court of appeals held that together, the petition and the bill of particulars must establish a prima facie case for the offenses charged. If they do not, the petition must be dismissed. It is important to note that in Kunz v. Kunz, the family court held that depositions are not allowed in a family offense proceeding.
In order to best determine whether the allegations of a family offense will establish a prima facie case for the offenses charged, or are defective, is the penal law for that offense: disorderly conduct is defined in penal law ß 240.20; harassment in the first degree is defined in penal law ß 240.25; harassment in the second degree is defined in penal law ß 240.26; aggravated harassment in the second degree is defined in penal law ß 240.30; aggravated assault is defined in penal law ß 120.12. Menacing in the first degree is defined in penal law ß 120.13; menacing in the second degree is defined in penal law ß 120.14; assault in the third degree is defined in penal law ß 120.00; assault in the second degree is defined in penal law ß 120.05; attempted assault is defined in penal law ß 110.00; and reckless endangerment can be either reckless endangerment in the first degree, which is defined in penal law ß 120.25, or reckless endangerment in the second degree, which is defined in penal law ß 120.20.
It is important to note that in People v. Webb, the appellate court held that it was the intent of the state legislature that sex abuse and child neglect are not to be prosecuted under an Article 8, but rather under Article 10. Nowhere are such offenses found within ß 812 of the Family Court Act. Often, though, Article 8 petitions have been filed for allegations of sex abuse and child neglect. Sometimes, the court issues orders of protection based on such allegations. However, it is the respondent’s responsibility to bring to the Courts attention that they do not have jurisdiction to hear such allegations under Article 8. Article 10 of the Family Court Act is the proper provision for such allegations and the petition must, pursuant to Article 10, be brought by the Department of Social Services and not the child’s other parent.
In Roofeh v. Roofeh, the Supreme Court held that an order of protection cannot be obtained to stop a respondent from smoking near the petitioner or the parties’ child pursuant to Family Court Act Article 8. Smoking is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. But, the court exercised its inherent power to issue orders safeguarding health and safety of husband and children and issued an order restricting the plaintiff’s smoking to only room of the house. Further, in Garrett v. Garrett, the appellate court held that an Article 8 petition cannot be filed against a respondent for her failure to help her spouse to regularize his immigration status. This too is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. In addition, in D.O. v. J.O., the family court held that an order of protection cannot be obtained because a respondent is habitually intoxicated, even when in the presence of the children. Again, this is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. However, such petitions have been filed and litigated in the Courts to date.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAMILY OFFENSE?
The criminal behavior which has been “civilized” by Family Court Act Article 8 is defined in the penal laws. This is a crucial aspect to determine whether or not a family offense petition makes out a prima facia case, and is too often overlooked when defending against a family offense petition. Many practitioners look solely to whether or not the alleged actions occurred. More importantly, a judge is supposed to look at whether or not the petitioner can prove all the necessary elements of the family offense alleged and defined in the penal laws. Each of the family offenses requires that the petitioner allege and prove intent or recklessness or a repeated course of conduct. A few of the family offenses require a prior such offense conviction.
The allegations in the family offense petition must be composed of the evidentiary facts that establish each element of the specific family offense being charged. In People v. Dumas, the court of appeals held that mere conclusory allegations in the petition are not sufficient. The petition cannot be based upon heresay either. To be able to determine if the petitioner meets the burden of presenting a prima facia case, the respondent should demand a bill of particulars. In People v. Hall, the court of appeals held that the bill of particulars must also constitute reasonable cause to believe the respondent committed the charged offense, or the petition must be dismissed. In People v. Alejandro, the court of appeals held that together, the petition and the bill of particulars must establish a prima facie case for the offenses charged. If they do not, the petition must be dismissed. It is important to note that in Kunz v. Kunz, the family court held that depositions are not allowed in a family offense proceeding.
It is important to note that in People v. Webb, the appellate court held that it was the intent of the state legislature that sex abuse and child neglect are not to be prosecuted under an Article 8, but rather under Article 10. Nowhere are such offenses found within ß 812 of the Family Court Act. Often, though, Article 8 petitions have been filed for allegations of sex abuse and child neglect. Sometimes, the court issues orders of protection based on such allegations. However, it is the respondent’s responsibility to bring to the Courts attention that they do not have jurisdiction to hear such allegations under Article 8. Article 10 of the Family Court Act is the proper provision for such allegations and the petition must, pursuant to Article 10, be brought by the Department of Social Services and not the child’s other parent.
In Roofeh v. Roofeh, the Supreme Court held that an order of protection cannot be obtained to stop a respondent from smoking near the petitioner or the parties’ child pursuant to Family Court Act Article 8. Smoking is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. But, the court exercised its inherent power to issue orders safeguarding health and safety of husband and children and issued an order restricting the plaintiff’s smoking to only room of the house. Further, in Garrett v. Garrett, the appellate court held that an Article 8 petition cannot be filed against a respondent for her failure to help her spouse to regularize his immigration status. This too is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. In addition, in D.O. v. J.O., the family court held that an order of protection cannot be obtained because a respondent is habitually intoxicated, even when in the presence of the children. Again, this is not a family offense as enumerated in the Family Court Act and defined in the Penal Laws. However, such petitions have been filed and litigated in the Courts to date.
Denuncia que la agredieron familiares de su ex pareja y resultó ser un vecino
viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA
El Juzgado de lo Penal ha condenado a una mujer a una multa como autora responsable de un delito de denuncia falsa en grado de tentativa después de que denunciara a dos familiares de su ex pareja de una supuesta agresión hacia ella y su hijo cuando en realidad había sido un vecino. La sentencia considera como hechos probados que el 8 de septiembre de 2010 fue remitido al Juzgado de Instrucción Número 4 de Palencia dos partes de lesiones confeccionados con fecha de 5 de septiembre de 2010 tanto de ella como de su hijo. Tras ser llamada a declarar en nov... more »
"Once you develop confidence in your own ability, you’ll be able to make a real contribution to creating a better world. Self-confidence is very important. Not in the sense of blind pride, but as a realistic awareness of what you can do. As human beings we can transform ourselves by our good qualities and reducing our faults. Our intelligence enables us to judge what is good from what is harmful." Dalai Lama
ReplyDelete