United States Supreme Court to Enact Federal Parenting Plan Legislation
Parenting plan legislation requires or permits the parties to a custody dispute to detail how they plan to allocate decision-making and care-giving responsibilities between themselves. In a very small number of states, they are mandatory. In most states that have adopted this kind of legislation, however, they are voluntary.
Several states have enacted parenting plan legislation.
Recognizing that the adversarial approach to allocating parental rights and responsibilities is a burden on the courts, unhealthy for parents, and detrimental to children’s psychological interests and well-being, some states are beginning to explore alternative methods of dealing with custody issues.
STANDING ORDER BY FLORIDA JUDGE
Parenting plan legislation requires or permits the parties to a custody dispute to detail how they plan to allocate decision-making and care-giving responsibilities between themselves. In a very small number of states, they are mandatory. In most states that have adopted this kind of legislation, however, they are voluntary.
Several states have enacted parenting plan legislation.
Recognizing that the adversarial approach to allocating parental rights and responsibilities is a burden on the courts, unhealthy for parents, and detrimental to children’s psychological interests and well-being, some states are beginning to explore alternative methods of dealing with custody issues.
STANDING ORDER BY FLORIDA JUDGE
Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.
Parenting plans
The three main purposes of parenting plan legislation are: 1. To shift the emphasis in custody cases from parental rights to parental responsibilities 2. Yo involve the parties more directly in their own custody determination and 3. To encourage and promote amicable resolutions of custody disputes without judicial intervention.
To the extent it requires the parties to answer specific questions about how particular responsibilities are to be allocated between them, parenting plan legislation at least partially achieves the first objective. On the other hand, it does not seem reasonable – or for that matter, necessary — to expect parents to lose interest in preserving and protecting their rights simply because they are also thinking about responsibilities.
Parenting plan legislation also partially achieves the second objective. It does not really take the power to decide custody away from judges and give it to parents, though. Even if the parents reach an agreement that they believe is in their children’s best interests, a court retains the power to reject the parties’ plan and impose its own if the one the parents devise is not close enough to the one the judge believes is ideal for them.
A serious question exists as to whether parenting plan legislation accomplishes the third objective, i.e., whether it really yields more amicable settlements without judicial intervention. Achievement of this goal requires an assumption that parents are always motivated by a desire to act in their children’s best interests. That assumption may not be realistic. For example, experience teaches that when child support is inversely correlated with the custody designation, as it is in many states, each party will be motivated by a desire to acquire that designation in order to be the one entitled to receive support instead of being the one required to pay.
Signed,
YOU!!!
Parenting plans
The three main purposes of parenting plan legislation are: 1. To shift the emphasis in custody cases from parental rights to parental responsibilities 2. Yo involve the parties more directly in their own custody determination and 3. To encourage and promote amicable resolutions of custody disputes without judicial intervention.
To the extent it requires the parties to answer specific questions about how particular responsibilities are to be allocated between them, parenting plan legislation at least partially achieves the first objective. On the other hand, it does not seem reasonable – or for that matter, necessary — to expect parents to lose interest in preserving and protecting their rights simply because they are also thinking about responsibilities.
Parenting plan legislation also partially achieves the second objective. It does not really take the power to decide custody away from judges and give it to parents, though. Even if the parents reach an agreement that they believe is in their children’s best interests, a court retains the power to reject the parties’ plan and impose its own if the one the parents devise is not close enough to the one the judge believes is ideal for them.
A serious question exists as to whether parenting plan legislation accomplishes the third objective, i.e., whether it really yields more amicable settlements without judicial intervention. Achievement of this goal requires an assumption that parents are always motivated by a desire to act in their children’s best interests. That assumption may not be realistic. For example, experience teaches that when child support is inversely correlated with the custody designation, as it is in many states, each party will be motivated by a desire to acquire that designation in order to be the one entitled to receive support instead of being the one required to pay.
Signed,
YOU!!!
HOW THIS WILL HELP
Back to Children's Rights
Florida State Representatives, Florida Family Judicial System, Florida Bar Association, Fox News, NBC, ABC, Bay News 9, Tampabay News, Bradenton Herald, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Governor Rick Scott
Children need both parents to be involved in their lives even when parents don't live together anymore! Loving parents like "Ray" are being denied their parental rights by the other parent and thier attorney, magistrate and judicial system!
Family courts routinely curtail the parenting rights of fit parents by choosing one custodial parent and one “visitor.” This must stop. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children…is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” (Troxel v. Granville, 2000) This precept was first declared by the Court over 75 years ago, but has been routinely ignored in custody determinations.
Half of all American children are growing up without a father in the home because their parents are divorced or never married. Such children suffer much higher rates of child abuse, educational underachievement, depression or alienation, violence or gang activity, poor health, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, and dysfunctional future family relationships. Society blames “irresponsible fathers” for these problems. This is a serious oversimplification.
When parents are estranged, misguided laws, judicial traditions, and government policies drive many loving fathers (and some mothers) out of their children’s lives, with dismaying results for children. Current Florida cases as well as NationWide are out of control with corruption! Placing a "yoke" of bondage on another human being is SLAVERY. We demand answers and we demand changes in the family court system. This is a call to action!
The interests of children should be of paramount importance, but have given way to an abomination of a cottage industry exploiting children for profit and bankrupting the American public. It affects all of us because our civil and constitutional rights as a whole are being destroyed and we are becoming a Police State, if we're not one already. It is happening in family courts across America, the implications of which are pivotal to the future of this country.
Family Court has become an atrocity and it is unthinkable, yet an absurd fact that it is self-policing. Put best by the Roman poet Juvenal, “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Satire VI, lines 347–8) or in English, “Who will guard the guards themselves?”
3 comments
Richard Johnson
We need #justiceforfathers.org. I've been dealing g with this issue since my divorce. I love my sons and will do anything to just spend some time with them. They are literally my neighbors and yet I nor my parents get to see them. This process of alienation must end. Children need both parents!
Nvr Johnson Pavlu
I currently firmly believe that the system of Family Courts is so closed, so flawed among our various states that it's rulings are so often lacking in thorough review of actual evidence of what's in the best interest of the child or children that it must be first dissolved. The rules & criteria established in each state are inconsistent. Even from county to county various practices are condoned. I'm against anonymous reports used as sole or first basis for opening a case & disrupting or...
Nvr Johnson Pavlu
- Nvr Johnson Pavlu
-
I oppose forced adoptions. Open adoptions at least provide a open way of inclusion (when desired,) by both parents & both of their families to love & contribute or give gifts rather than grief. Both parents are not always known, even when known maintaining a family unit of the two is often not desired by either. All too many come from disrupted families themselves, and focus still more on what they want, not what they are willing to give of themselves with respect for the time they spend...
Nvr Johnson Pavlu
- Nvr Johnson Pavlu
-
There is very little if any oversight of the Family Court system. Anonymous reporting is & can be done by any bored, critical, or bitter party who many times cause a waste of time & money while having little knowledge of the child or children or their family members. The accusers identity is kept secret so the there is no right to self-defense of the accused. Of course I believe it best each parent includes and considers & encourages the involvement of the other parent in the life of the...
by Carey Casey
"Championship Fathering" is an effort to change the culture for today's children and the children of coming generations.
We believe every child needs a dad they can count on. The research is clear: children thrive when they have an involved father—someone who loves them, knows them, guides them, and helps them achieve their destiny. At the National Center for Fathering, we inspire and equip men to be the involved fathers, grandfathers and father figures their children need.
Championship Fathers aren't perfect. They just keep practicing the three fundamentals of being an effective dad: loving, coaching, and modeling, encouraging, enlisting.
Watch D.O.G.S., Father-Daughter Summit, Urban Fathering, Fathering Court, Championship Fathering |
Phone | 913-384-4661 |
|---|---|
Website |
group page ... www.facebook.com/groups/40568192109/home page ... www.fathers.com/watchdogs
It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
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?
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."