Judge
Manno Schurr Brings Nursing Background to Courtroom
Judge Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge
Valerie Manno Schurr had been a nurse for a dozen years when she passed the
Florida Bar exam. She kept working in the operating room.
"One day we had a new surgeon come in, and they said, 'You
know there's a lawyer in the room. You better be careful,' " she said.
After the operation, "the head nurse came to me and said, 'You know you
made that guy very nervous. He didn't like that there was a lawyer in the
room.' "
The Miami Beach native pursued nursing right after graduating from
North Miami High School, urged on by her sister, who was already a nurse.
"I couldn't decide what I wanted to do, and she said, 'Why
don't you go to nursing school? It's a great job. You're going to love it.' " Manno Schurr
recalled. "And I did. I really did. Nursing is a wonderful, wonderful
profession."
She started in oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital.
It was emotionally trying. Her mother died of breast cancer at 37
when Manno Schurr was 5. Caring for cancer patients took its toll.
Even though some were cured, she said the work was still painful
for her. After two years, she got reassigned to the intensive care unit, then
the recovery room. "Then I got cross-trained to work in the operating
room," Manno Schurr said.
"I did paperwork. I'd get the patient from the holding area,
check the band—'Are you so and so? Are you having this surgery?' You have to
make sure that everybody knew what we were doing," she said.
She served as the operating room's official historian and monitor,
recording every event and keeping track of every instrument and piece of
equipment used.
"I would do: Time patient in the room. Time patient on the
table. Anesthesia started at this time. The time of the first incision,"
she said. "And then when they would start to close, I had to count
everything."
The operation couldn't end until every item was accounted for,
down to every single sponge—even if it meant, as she once did, getting down on
her hands and knees and searching under the operating table to find it.
Dual Career
In 1989, she said, "I started getting restless. I just wanted
to do something else. I knew a bunch of people that were at UM law school. …
Actually, we went to the law school, and I sat in the back of the room. They
didn't say anything. They let me do it. And I said, 'I think this is very cool.
I think I want to do this.'
"The next thing I know," she said, "I'm a law
student."
Manno Schurr kept working as a nurse and as a clerk at a law firm
steps from the Flagler Street courthouse.
"I went to night school, and I had a job Saturday and Sunday
that I worked from 7A to 7P" in the ICU units at local hospitals, she
said. "I went to school at night."
After Manno Schurr graduated, she said, "It took me a couple
of years to get a job." When she did, her years of experience in hospitals
paid off.
"I got a lot of work doing medical malpractice," she
said. "That's what people wanted me to do."
In 1996, she left to form a general civil litigation practice with
her husband. In 2004, she ran for county court and lost. She ran again for
circuit court in 2006 and won.
"I loved being a nurse," she said. "I loved being a
lawyer. Now I'm here, and I love it. I'm very happy."
Still, she kept her nursing license active until just a couple of
years ago, and she keeps her nursing honor society pin in her chambers. And she
said her years of nursing still pay off in the courtroom, in more ways than
one.
"I've been in every division. I started off in dependency; I
went to criminal and civil. When I was over there in civil and I was trying a
medmal case and the doctor was testifying on the stand, it was great because I
knew everything that was going on," she said.
Now in the family division, Manno Schurr said: "Everybody
who's on the bench, all of us, we bring to this job all of our experiences in
life, and it makes you a better judge. I think that being a nurse gives me a
lot of compassion, especially in this division. It gives me a lot of compassion
for people."
Like many of the judges, she said, she might someday teach, but
not necessarily at a law school. She said she'd rather teach nursing. ~ Read more: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202729965596/Judge-Manno-Schurr-Brings-Nursing-Background-to-Courtroom#ixzz3lrDCJCXh
What's being said
David
Inguanzo-Petitioner-2008-029595
Jul 10, 2015
Judge
Manno-Schurr is my 8 year-old Paternity - Family Court Case Presiding Judge.
The 5th Judge to preside over my simple case; an unwed biological father
seeking to maintain contact with his daughter Zoraya (Google and Judge
Manno-Schurr is enabling Child Abuse via Parental Alienation.
On March 25th, 2015, in a special set hearing at the Family Courthouse, Judge Manno-Schurr interrupted my testimony while on the witness stand to notate the court reporter‘s record saying…
Judge
Manno-Schurr: "the father (me) is
turning red in the face, yelling at me, and pointing his finger at me"
Stuart
Abramson (for Petitioner), objected noting the record: "the father has been diagnosed with PTSD
your honor".
Judge
Manno-Schurr (this is why you should rethink this article) said: "Mr. Inguanzo were you in the
military?"
Petitioner Testimony: "NO your Honor...YOU AND THIS CASE HAS CAUSED THE PTSD ACCORDING TO MY DOCTORS"
How about that for a Registered Nurse!!!
WE SUPPORT DVI - THE INSIDE STORY BY MR. TOM LEMMONS
Congressional Testimony: Glen Gibellina to Bill Windsor of Lawless America
- Welcome for the first time Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr. You can find her in courtroom 2-8. She took over Judge Firtel's division. If any of you know anything about Judge Manno-Schurr please share your knowledge with our readers. She comes from Civil. She knows nothing about criminal. She has never sentenced a criminal defendant - ever. (She did shadow Judge Firtel for a few calendars). Provide her with some case law; write a legal memorandum; give her some guidance.
- THE BEST JA'S THE REGJB HAS EVER KNOWN.Welcome back to Diana Petitto. She was Judge Pineiro's JA during his years on the bench. After he passed away, she joined Judge Manno Schurr in civil. She re-joins the REGJB family. Please drop by chambers in Room 223 and say hello to Diana. She would love to see all of you.
- RUNOFF: MANNO-SCHURR VS-SANCHEZ GRONLIER:HYPHEN HEAVEN:The totals from Tuesday night were:Valerie R. Manno Schurr41.13%53,676Jose R. Sanchez-Gronlier33.01%43,081Rima Catherine Bardawil25.86%33,744130,501[Memo to Rima Bardawil: get a hypen. You were out-hyphenated.]We sniff an upset here. We can’t pinpoint exactly why we feel it, but something inside of us says “Sanchez-Gronlier”. What a story that would be! From clerk to Judge. Mr. Sanchez-Gronlier has a lot to be proud of already, but he is clearly an underdog here, because we believe that Ms. Manno-Schurr has the money -or ability to raise the money needed- to win. But she should not rest on her laurels. Stranger things have happened.
DCBA JUDICIAL POLL - YOUR BEST AND WORST SOUTH FLORIDA JUDGES
Highest Percentage of Unqualified votes:Judge Gisela Cardonne Ely - 32%Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis - 23% ~ Presided in Case no. 2008-09595-FC-17 from 2009 until May 2011 - Recused herself from case after Petitioner sent letter to Florida Bar concerning the "reported False Allegations of Domestic Violence" by Nixa Maria Rose - Mom.
Judge Maria Korvick - 23%Judge Valerie Manno Schurr - 22% ~ Currently Presiding over case no. 2008-029595-FC-17
- WHAT ARE YOUR CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES NET WORTH:Of your 24 incumbent judges, 14 of them have a net worth of at least One Million Dollars. Your Top Four are:Michael Hanzman - $23,000,000
Victoria Brennan - $9.8 mil ~ PRESIDED OVER APRIL 2009 Domestic Violence case no. 2009-
Filed 10 days after Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis ordered Father-Petitioner(David Inguanzo) and Mother-Respondent(Nixa Rose) to Family Court Services for Alienation Intervention, Co-Parenting, and other counseling. Judge Dennis' Order dated February 8th, 2009 - Mother's Petition for Restraining Order dated February 18th, 2009.Valerie Manno Schurr - $4.0 mil
Ellen Venzer - $3.9 milThe other ten incumbents include five with a net worth of under $300,000.On Friday, we will congratulate the winners and post the final line-ups for contested elections.Keep those private tips coming. - GROUP 78 - Valerie Schurr Manno, 1993; she is listed with the Florida Bar as Valerie Manno; lost in 2004 to Judge Judith Rubenstein.
WITH THIS PLEA I THEE WED
- The following is a transcript from Judge Spencer Eig’s division. (Welcome to the blog Judge Eig) Some of the names have been removed by Rumpole to protect the innocent. The transcript has been edited in that much of the proceedings have been removed. However, no words have been added. The words below are as they appear in the entire transcript that was emailed to us. The transcript was emailed to us by someone who was NOT a party to this case. We have no idea how or why they obtained this transcript.
CRIMINAL DIVISION JUDGE SPENCER EIG
CASE NO. F07-7312
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
-vs-WOODROW STARLING,Defendant.The above-entitled case came on for hearing before the Honorable JUDGE SPENCER EIG,Judge of the above-styled court at the Metropolitan Justice Building, at 1351 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida, 33125, on September 25, 2007…THE COURT: Good morning to you all.FAMILY MEMBER: Good morning.THE COURT: Are you relatives of Mr. Starling?FAMILY MEMBER: Yes, Sir.THE COURT: What is your name?FAMILY MEMBER: My name is_________. I am his sister. That is my father, ------------, --------his baby's mother and ------- Starling, his baby.THE COURT: Good morning, Baby. What is your name?FAMILY MEMBER: ------ --------THE COURT: Were you and Mr. Starling living together?FAMILY MEMBER: Yes.THE COURT: Mr. Starling, were you living with Ms. ----?THE DEFENDANT: Off and on. We resided together. But the conditions of my probation I had to stay at my father's house, you know.THE COURT: Is there a special condition of Mr. Starling's probation that he live with his father?...
THE CLERK: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Starling, you are getting old. How old are you?
THE DEFENDANT: 21.
THE COURT: You have child a there.
THE COURT: Is that your child?THE DEFENDANT: Yes. That was my child… (there is a discussion of the defendant’s other cases and whether there is a stay away order prohibiting the defendant from living with the mother of his child.)THE COURT: Do you want to get back to go withMr. Starling? Or do you want a stay away order or what do you want?FAMILY MEMBER: No. I don't want A stay away order.THE COURT: Anyway, Mr. Starling, we have this thing. I don't know how to describe it except for thing that our state and really our own country have established people who show they want to make a commitment to the future and be a productive member of society. This thing is called marriage. Some people all it an institution. They also call it Dade County Jail Institution. (Rumpole notes, we consider the comparison of jail and marriage to be an apt way of determining the virtues of marriage. And jail for that matter.)
It is not like that. If you indicated to me that you wanted to make a commitment to the future, that you have Ms. --- here and you wanted to make her Mrs. Starling. What is the baby's name?
THE COURT: And make a commitment to this family unit that I am seeing here in front of you, this is something I would place a great deal of respect for. I would release you today, and you know you can come back in the future and deal with whatever issues there are. You would have a lot to bring to the table. Living some place else. This is my baby mama. And this is a very loose relationship that could be here one day and gone tomorrow, you are not bringing anything to the table. I am not trying to force you. You have to enter into marriage voluntarily. And it is something you all need to discuss as a family that that is the best way to proceed. So what I am going to do today is release you on your own recognizance. I am going to temporarily add that you participate in a domestic violence class as a part of your probation. So that whatever occurred in the past, you will start to get the tools to deal with whatever situations raise without getting into trouble for it. And you know and Ms--- and your family can decide what kind of a future that you all want to have together. That is up to you all. We can come back for a charge, and we will see what is going on with that. There is, you know, a lot of people who think they couldn't get married. To get married they have to have money for a house and a big wedding and all of that kind of stuff. It is not true. It is not true at all. (Rumpole notes that Judge Eig has not been dating the same women we have dated. Money and a big house have EVERYTHING to do with marriage in our milieu.) People can make a commitment to the future and not necessarily have the whole thing all at once, but build it. Build it brick by brick. So we will set the case for report on the affidavit for October 26th. I will ROR you today. We will add the domestic violence referral, as soon as possible. And I wish you and the whole family the best of luck in the future.
Rumpole notes: Good intentions, bad execution. One cannot fault the judge for trying to impose some lifetime wisdom and experience in this matter. Lord knows the problems of absentee fathers has wrecked havoc with this generation of children. The statistics are there, check them out. BUT, there is something just WRONG with a judge releasing someone from jail, holding a probation violation affidavit over their head, telling them to return, and making sure they understand in no uncertain terms how favourably the court would view the nuptials of the defendant and the mother of his child.There is an element of coercion present for one thing, no matter how much Judge Eig tried to avoid it. For another thing, there is an element of equal protection. Can a Defendant who lives an alternative lifestyle and is gay expect the same fair treatment from a Judge who is family oriented?Judges who put themselves into the lives of young defendants and require them to finish high school or get a GED, and remain drug and alcohol free are doing great work. And a Judge who made inquiry about child support in a matter similar to this would also be within the bounds of propriety in nudging a defendant to meet their responsibility to their family. But in our view, despite the very best intentions of Judge Eig, we do not think it is proper for a Judge to be encouraging anyone to get married. And while we admit a healthy aversion to the institution of marriage, there are bigger issues at play here beyond our own fears of commitment.See you in court, and not in a Chapel getting hitched anytime soon.
New ChiefSome say Judge (Bertilla) Soto supplants Stan (Blake) as Stan slips the surly bonds of the REGJB and slinks, slips, and slides to the Lawson center courthouse where he will sit in Family court.Rumour has it that Judge Soto will be our next administrative judge.A few thoughts:Shouldn't "Family Court" be called "Ex-Family court"?Judge Soto appears to be a solid choice. She is knowledgeable, pleasant, runs a good courtroom, gives a fair trial to both sides, and appears to be well respected by her colleagues (which quite frankly isn't something we'd brag about.)Our inside source told us that Judge Soto got the job as Class President, err.... Administrative Judge by promising less home work and more time at recess if her class mates would vote for her. She also promised to put a soda machine in the lunchroom.
- BLOGGING FROM THE BENCH
Much like the Imus contretemps, (he was fired by MSNBC Wednesday night) a “throw-away” comment about Judges blogging at work has erupted into a thoughtful conversation, on Judges, Blogging at work, and voire dire in family court.
Judge Faber started things off with a well written explanation on why he hired some of his current staff that used to work for his predecessor.
Then Judge Pinero chimed in with a thoughtful comment on Judges Blogging, voire dire, and yogurt. You can read both of the Robed Readers comments in the comments section to Monday’s post.
Judge Pinero had this to say on the issue of the propriety of Judicial blogging:
Firstly, please know that I did not decide to post under my own name on a mere whim. I thought long and hard about doing so. The Canons require I should uphold the integrity of the bench at all times--if i don't I will be and well should be in deep doo doo. Leaving aside the medium used for my comments. My comments have been directed at all times to issues, which I humbly believe, furthered the proper administration of justice--also mandated by the Canons.
Judge Pinero then threw in a clever plug for the blog, showing that he knows where his bread is buttered: Secondly, as to the medium--posting on Rumpole's blog. Where else do you get immediate and varied feedback?
In the penultimate paragraph, a quote from the Bard and the Merchant of Venice by Judge Pinero was sure to win our favor as well: Lastly, believe it or not, judges are people too--when you prick us, do we not bleed? (no infantile comments, please)
And finally, in the best traditions of the blog, a little fun with the readers: As an example of how the blog can be a learning experience I wish to inform some members of the criminal bar that I have decided to emend my practice and follow their and Rumpole's suggestion. While in the family division, I have decided to allow the litigators free rein to conduct exhaustive and wide ranging jury selection with no interruptions from the bench.
All in all, a textbook comment.
Quantum Mechanics is never far from our mind, and as we have previously written, neither is Schrodinger’s Cat. The principle behind Erwin Schrodinger’s postulation of a possible paradox, is that in quantum mechanics, one could imagine placing a cat in a steel box (we have such thoughts over certain prosecutors and judges from time to time, but for purposes of tradition, we’ll stick with the cat) and removing it from all outside influences to the extent that at some point the state of the cat could only be described by combining possible rest states- as any measurement could not be done without the observation interfering with the experiment. The experiment envisioned a machine that when a radioactive isotope decayed, released poison gas. Under these conditions of isolation and no observation, the cat could-under the laws of Quantum Mechanics- be said to be both alive and dead at any particular moment.
Now, to solve our own little dilemma, one can imagine a Judge, safe from prying eyes in their secure chambers, either studiously labouring on an order denying our motion to suppress, or writing comments on the blog. This being the Justice Building, the JA is on a break, and the Bailiff is playing on-line poker on the computer in the chambers next door. Without any observation (assuming FDLE has removed the remainder of the bugs left over from Operation Court-Broom) our Jurist could be said to be both denying our motion to suppress, and blogging, at the same moment.
Quite a feat for a Judge who doesn’t bother to read the cases we send with the motion.
We think judicial participation on the blog is a good thing. Judges have apologized, explained, and risen in indigent defense of their actions. All helped to promote a dialogue between the parties. We agree that a Judge should not expound on the propriety of a decision of another Judge, or opine on a legal issue that may come before them. But a brief comment on why they hold 8am soundings, or conduct voire dire until 9PM might be appropriate.
And of course, Judge Pinero’s new experiment on voire dire in family court bears watching. Perhaps, he might expound on his ideas and write a scholarly article on the subject. Maybe even a book deal is in the future. In any event, no one can dispute that we enjoy his input and the blog is better off for it.
See You In Court, and not in court, all at the same time. (In theory).
Posted by Children's Rights on Friday, September 4, 2015
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Friday, August 28, 2015
Kindly consider our chart setting out the seven (7) basic
forms of or avenues to judicial accountability. These are the ways that judges
may be held accountable for judicial acts.
As you can see, there is a cluster of people in the navy
blue section for elections; the lime green section for discipline; and the grey
section for academic review. These are the areas of judicial accountability
that average Americans can or could substantially control.
Are you determined to keep or assert that control? Would you
believe that many good government advocates do little to protect or enhance
that control, even as they fight for increased judicial accountability?!?!?!
Of course, not all of us are part of academia. But we all
should be very concerned that across America , the option of judicial
elections is being quietly eliminated. To understand why average Americans
should be outraged by that development, read “Why Merit Selection of State
Court Judges Lacks Merit” by Matthew Schneider, Volume 56 Wayne L. Rev. 609
(2010)
National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) is not on
the frontlines of judicial elections -vs- merit selection debates. But NFOJA is
one of very few groups suggesting that private citizens have a constitutional
right to oversee state judicial disciplinary processes. It is our belief that
the kind of citizen oversight that NFOJA proposes is among the rights reserved
to the people by our U.S. Constitution.
Imagine the impact of judges knowing their conduct on the
bench may be evaluated by trained, randomly selected private citizens as
opposed to judicial colleagues or other institutional actors or even
hand-picked private citizens. Such is the goal of NFOJA’s proposed “Citizen
Panels On Judicial Misconduct Act”. Such appears to be the mandate of our U.S.
Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and the rights it reserves to We the People.
You may not do most of your activism through NFOJA, but we
encourage you to join NFOJA; encourage others to join NFOJA; become an active
part of our online networks; and consider becoming an active NFOJA member.
Learn more @ http://50states.ning.com
Thank you.
Zena Crenshaw-Logal and
Dr. Andrew D. Jackson
NFOJA Co-Adminstrators
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.
WE SUPPORT DVI - THE INSIDE STORY BY MR. TOM LEMMONS
https://www.causes.com/posts/793265-fatherlessness-is-a-growing-crisis-in-america-take-the-presidents-fatherhood-pledge
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Let's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate :2015))4 Family Justice Reform!23 September–25 December · WORLDWIDE!https://www.facebook.com/events/137994056385452/
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 16, 2015
http://americanfathersliberationarmy.blogspot.com/2013/02/childrens-rights-three-ring-circus.html
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, September 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 16, 2015
"A lie would have no sense unless the truth were felt dangerous." ~ Alfred Adler
ReplyDeleteWe also have Unalienable Rights – Absolute Rights – Natural Rights
ReplyDeleteThe absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.
By the “absolute rights” of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).
Constitutional Right to Be a Parent
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990.
“Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)
“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”
Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
DeleteParents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
DeleteThe parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
DeleteOne of the most precious rights possessed by parents is the right to raise their children free of government interference. That right, “more precious than mere property rights,” is a liberty interest, protected by the substantive and procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Moreover, the fact that the custodians are grandparents rather than parents is legally insignificant, because families headed by extended family members are entitled to the same constitutional protections as those headed by parents, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) Even relatives who are licensed as foster parents enjoy the same constitutional rights as other custodial relatives. Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982).
Because of the magnitude of the liberty interests of parents and adult extended family members in the care and companionship of children, the Fourteenth Amendment protects these substantive due process liberty interests by prohibiting the government from depriving fit parents of custody of their children. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 824 (2d Cir. 1977); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1991). In the United States Supreme Court’s view, the state registers “no gains toward its stated goals [of protecting children] when it separates a fit parent from the custody of his children.” Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652.
Grandparents are also entitled to procedural due process. “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed.2d 865 (1950)).
DeleteThe grandchildren have a Fourth Amendment right not to be seized by the government for child protective purposes unless it has probable cause to believe that the children have been neglected. Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 1832, 146 L.Ed.2d 776 (2000). Probable cause exists only if the officials have persuasive evidence of serious ongoing abuse and reason to fear imminent recurrence. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1987).
Grandparents cannot be dismissed from the dependency case because the dependency case is the only legal way that the state can interfere with their custody. The state must prove that they are abusive or neglectful and that the children would be at risk of immediate serious harm if returned.
FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
ReplyDeleteIn controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
Florida Judges & Lawyers Complaints
ReplyDeleteHow to file complaints against Florida Judges and Florida Lawyers?
Florida Judge Complaints
Contact the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee. To file a complaint about a judge in Florida: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Write to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
Florida Judicial Complaint Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Telephone
850-488-1581
Florida Lawyer Complaints
Florida Bar handles complaints about lawyers in Florida. To file a complaint about a lawyer in Florida: http://www.floridabar.org
Lawyer Complaint Mailing Address
Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Telephone
850/561-5600
Complaints about Florida Judges and Florida 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 about the Florida Judge with sufficient documentation. Contact the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
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 can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to Florida Bar.
Check the Florida web site http://www.floridabar.org to find the requirements for a complaint about a Florida Lawyer.
"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.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."