A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.
It is vital to prepare yourself before you enter the CourtroomDoorsThere a legal "biases" in our courts. However, if you are aware of them you will have a better chance defending yourself."KNOWLEDGE is Power"
Judge Leonard Edwards wrote an article for the Judges Page on the National CASA website where he says that judges need to stop rubber stamping these cases and enforce the "Reasonable Efforts" requirement, but they are afraid a "No Reasonable Efforts" ruling could cost their state millions of dollars. There is also at least one Judges Bench Book (California) that is referred to as "The Smoking Gun"
>>> because it very clearly states that the courts MUST rule during the initial hearing (after removal) that it is contrary to the best interest of the child to be returned home, otherwise the state is NEVER eligible for federal funding.
Related Reading: Standards of Practice for Attorneys Representing Parents in Abuse and Neglect Cases - ABA- 2006 (Download pdf) This document out lines the many responsibilities of what lawyers are supposed to do when working with their client. May want to download and review this to document what your lawyer actually does, in your particular experiences. Sections include: 1) Summary of the Standards; 2) Basic Obligations of Parents' Attorneys; 3) Obligations of Attorney Manager; and 4) Role of the Court.. (Check out other Lawyer Related Information)
What are Judges Bench Books??
Simply put, the best way to say it would be that Judges Bench Books are the instruction manuals on how a Judge can or should rule and/or preside over a case. The biggest benefit to providing access to the Bench Books is it gives people a chance to have "inside information" to help them better anticipate what they're facing, and possibly help them defend themselves better. It also shows/proves any incentive that the Judges may have for ruling a certain way.
Bad Judges exist. We all know they do. But very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge. Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary. When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client's interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the "system" locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer. Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary.
But Hirschfeld still believes that the Bad Judges form only a minority, and need to be weeded out. It is to the great majority of fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated.
What To Do About A Bad Judge
LEARN THE JUDGE'S RECORD Courtroom Monitoring, Case Research, Investigation, Ask local practitioners, Ask national court reform advocacy groups,
New Judges with no track record - listen to other cases in their courtrooms before losing your right to disqualify,
IDENTIFY AND PUBLICLY EXPOSE BIASED AND PREJUDICED JUDGES Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse of subsequent litigants
Before the trial: DISQUALIFICATION FOR CAUSE Example: Motion for Recusal
Here is an example of an actual, public-record Motion for Recusal for Cause. It is dangerous to try such a motion unless there is a high probability of success (such success is unlikely, because judges rarely admit that their brethren are biased or prejudiced). If the motion is denied, one is stuck with not only a Bad Judge, but an angrier one.
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO
Comes now petitioner, David L. Rose, pro-se and moves to recuse the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt for the reasons that the said judge is biased and prejudiced against the petitioner and for the further reason that she is biased and prejudiced against males seeking custody, and for the further reason that she is biased and prejudiced against children in the context of custody cases, all as more particularly appears in the Affidavit of Bias and Prejudice submitted herewith.
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully moves and prays that the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt remove and disqualify herself as judge, or that the instant motion be heard by a judge other than Judge Steinhardt pursuant to the doctrine of Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (1984), to the end that another judge be assigned to hear and try all matters in the instant case.
This is the 22nd. day of July 1987
___________________________________
David L. Rose
Pro-se
(Address)
Aurora, Colorado 80015
(303) (phone)
VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO )
: ss.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared the affiant named below, who, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposed and said that he has read the above and foregoing document and knows the contents thereof, and that all statements of fact contained therein are true.
This is the 22nd. Day of July 1987,
_________________________________
AFFIANT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this _____ day of
July 1987.
________________________________
, NOTARY PUBLIC
Address of notary:
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I do hereby certify that the above foregoing MOTION was mailed postage
pre-paid by placing the same in a stamped envelope and placed in the United States mail, to the respondents last attorney of record and to
Comes now Petitioner, David L. Rose, pro-se, who, being first duly sworn, states that he believes the Honorable Steinhardt is biased and prejudiced against him personally, and against fathers seeking custody, and against fathers seeking significant involvement with their children and against children.
Petitioner is past president of Fathers For Equal Rights of Colorado, Executive Vice-President of The National Congress for Men, and editor of Fathers Network a magazine for Fathers involved in discriminatory divorces and has been an outspoken critic of Judge Steinhardt.
The petitioner has been vocal in denouncing the decisions and the attitude of the Honorable Judge Steinhardt and has made these proclamations public.
The petitioner has initiated an independent evaluation of the Honorable Steinhardt's record in custody matters and has determined that her record clearly shows an extreme PREJUDICE against men and against pro-se litigants.
The effect of this exercise of petitioner's right to freedom of speech is to so prejudice Judge Steinhardt, an avowed advocate of feminist rights, against him that he cannot obtain a fair trial in her court.
The judge has been unnecessarily harsh on the petitioner in this matter and it has appeared to at least two other witnesses to her conduct that she has acted in a prejudicial fashion toward the petitioner. (Exhibits attached). Further the court has imposed such impossible financial burdens on the petitioner
Accordingly, affiant moves and prays that the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt be disqualified from further proceedings in this matter.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
This is the 22nd. day of July, 1987.
VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared the affiant named below, who, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposed and said that he has read the above and foregoing document and knows the contents thereof, and that all statements of fact contained therein are true.
This is the 22ND. day of July 1987, at Denver, Colorado.
__________________________________
AFFIANT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 15th day of
July 1987, at Denver, Colorado. My commission expires _________
--------------------------
NOTARY PUBLIC
Address of notary:
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO
This motion by David L. Rose, Pro-se to recuse Judge Steinhardt is governed by Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 97.
The question is not whether the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt is impartial in fact, but rather whether reasonable men might question her impartiality under all circumstances. United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1979).
Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a judge other than Judge Steinhardt, at which hearing he may adduce evidence to show that Judge Steinhardt is prejudiced against outspoken advocates of equal rights for fathers, including the petitioner.
The instant motion must be heard by a judge other than Judge Steinhardt. The case of Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1984) is apposite. In that case, the Supreme Court said:
Where an attorney for one of the litigants signs a verified affidavit alleging conduct and statements on the part of a trial judge which, if true, shows bias and prejudice or the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, it is an abuse of discretion if that judge does not withdraw from the case, even though he or she believes the statements are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. In such a case, the judge should not pass upon the truth or falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit, but only upon the dequacy of the motion as a matter of law.
In another case as reported in the Colorado Lawyer; Wright vs. District Court, 16 Colorado Lawyer 541, March 1987 the court ruled that:
The fact that Judge Goldsmith in his own mind does not believe that he is prejudiced against Wright and his firm does not prevent disqualification if the motions and affidavits reflect prejudice and an appearance of impropriety.
The Supreme Court went on to say:
Once facts have been set forth that create a reasonable inference of a "bent of mind" that will prevent the judge from dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal, it is incumbent upon the trial judge to recuse himself. See People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589, 595 (Colo. 1981); C.J.C. Canon 3(C)(1). A trial judge must accept the affidavits filed with the motion as true, even though the judge believes that the statements contained in the affidavits are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982).
C.R.C.P. 97 provides:
"A judge shall be disqualified in an action in which he is interested or prejudiced, or has been of counsel for any party, or is or has been a material witness, or is so related or connected with any party of his attorney as to render it improper for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein. A judge may disqualify himself on his own motion for any of said reasons or any party may move for such disqualification and a motion by a party for disqualification shall be supported by affidavit. Upon the filing by a party of such a motion all other proceedings in the case shall be suspended until a ruling is made thereon. Upon disqualifying himself, a judge shall notify forthwith the chief judge of the district who shall assign another judge in the district to hear the action. If no other judge in the district is available or qualified, the chief judge shall notify forthwith the court administrator who shall obtain from the Chief Justice the assignment of a replacement judge."
We said in Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1984):
"Ordinarily, the question of whether a judge should be disqualified in a civil case is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. In re Marriage of Mann, 655 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1982). However, where an attorney for one of the litigants signs a verified affidavit alleging conduct and statements on the part of a trial judge which, if true, show bias or prejudice or the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, it is an abuse of discretion if that judge does not withdraw from the case, even though he or she believes the statements are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. In such a case, the judge should not pass upon the truth or falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit, but only upon the adequacy of the of the motion as a matter of law. 'The motion and supporting affidavit speak for themselves and the only question involved is whether the facts alleged are sufficient to compel the judge to disqualify himself.' Kovacheff v Langhart, 147 Colo. 339, 343-44, 363 P.2d 702, 705 (1961). The motion and affidavits are legally adequate if they 'state facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that the judge has bias or prejudice that will prevent him from dealing fairly' with the party seeking recusal. People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589, 595 (Colo. 1981)."
Because the act of appearing Pro-se, installs and grants an individual under the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Colorado, full authority to act as an officer of the court in all matters both civil and criminal, it therefore stands to reason that an affidavit signed by an individual, pro-se and substantiated by others who were witness to the event, should bear up as having the same weight as an affidavit signed by an attorney for a litigant.
It therefore stand to reason that:
"A judge must grant a motion for disqualification if the motion and supporting affidavits state facts from which it reasonably may be inferred that the judge has a bias or prejudice that will prevent him from dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal. The judge must accept the affidavits filed with the motion as true even though the judge believes that the statements contained in the affidavits are false."
Respectfully it is submitted that the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt must be disqualified from the above numbered and entitled action.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd.., day of July 1987.
______________________________________
David L. Rose
(address).
Aurora, Colorado 80015
(303) (phone)
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
(same as first example)
***(More to Come—Information Submitted by Charles Harman)
Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. We are not lawyers or affilated with any lawyers shown. It the the responsiblity of the user to check the accuracy and validity of this information.
One of the legal fantasies promoted by governments and officials is the idea of ‘sovereign immunity’… where they are not liable for their corrupt and illegal actions. Unfortunately this lie of ‘sovereign immunity’ is also repeated unknowingly by people who have a real case against government officials and therefore do not pursue very valid…Read More
AMERICA'S MOST FAMOUS judge has told a former Minister for Justice that Ireland should have cameras in every courtroom. Speaking to Nora Owen on TV3's Midweek, Judge Judy said closed courtrooms protect two things – bad judges and bad lawyers. "They also protect bad institutions that serve those courts, such as social services," she continued.…Read More
This petition is to “Educate and inform the whole mass of people….They are the ONLY sure reliance for the PRESERVATION OF LIBERTY.” -Thomas Jefferson (emphasis added) The JUDICIARY has ABSOLUTE TYRANNICAL RULE over every citizen of the United States, no exceptions. All must take heed to the EVIL THIS ABSOLUTE POWER CREATES. ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL…Read More
Last month, the Mississippi Supreme Court removed a judge from office and fined him $3,500 for failing to follow the law in drug court and other misconduct. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Thompson (Mississippi Supreme Court May 5, 2015). (He has asked for re-consideration.) Contrary to statute, participants in the judge’s drug court had…Read More
While most mainstream media outlets are still on the judicial bandwagon, it appears that rather than get caught in the crossfire, some are starting CYA campaigns. More journalists are exposing each day, that the lives of millions of Americans over the last fifty years, have been destroyed because of abuse of power and collusion by judges and…Read More
Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation will be holding a public hearing on pay raises for New York State judges. It will be the one and only hearing that this Commission will be holding on judicial pay raises – and it will be in Manhattan, at 11 a.m., at the New York City Bar Association at 42 West 44th Street. The…Read More
Now there’s a better way to shape the issues that matter Upgrade to Brigade for all-new petitions, discussions, and more from the team that brought you Causes.
By Chester J Chalupowski CJC I & RE The Probate and Family Court Department has jurisdiction over family-related and probate matters such as divorce, paternity, child support, custody, visitation, adoption, termination of parental rights, abuse prevention and wills, estates, trusts, guardianships, conservatorships, and changes of…Read More
Introduction: If you want to join now, just jump down to the registration form at the bottom of this Homepage, or first read the Overview just below, and/or learn about the very powerful constitutional Arguments that we're going to use within the Complaint. If you are hoping to find some power legal ammo for use in your own personal family…Read More
Reporting misconduct using the proper form and wording is the only way you can be heard, and the only way authorities and legislators can see what is happening. There are many forms of misconduct when it comes to professionals handling matters related to divorce and child custody. And this arena is ripe for taking advantage of those in need.…Read More
ST. LOUIS (AP) — The U.S. Department of Justice released a report critical of the St. Louis County Family Court on Friday, finding that black youths are treated more harshly than whites, and juveniles are often deprived of constitutional rights. Though unrelated to the department's investigation in Ferguson, the new report again raises concern…Read More
About the Commission on Judicial Performance in California The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.The…Read More
One of Researching Reform’s interests is judicial bias – the extent to which judges allow their personal sentiments to dictate the way they handle their cases – so the recent furore over Justice Pauffley’s remarks about hitting children and cultural norms fascinated us. Judicial bias is a very real, and present problem. All of us are prone to…Read More
gallery_thumbnails_show|article-gallery-4769760|article-gallery-4769760|0 gallery_overlay_open|article-gallery-4769760|article-gallery-4769760|0 gallery_overlay_open_thumbs|article-gallery-4769760|article-gallery-4769760|0 County Court No. 3 Judge…Read More
San Francisco: A string of court corruption scandals in California - including a ticket fixing scheme uncovered by the FBI in Orange County and an alleged racketeering organization in Sacramento County - are the result of mismanagement and incompetence at the state Judicial Council, according to a report by a non-profit journalism organization. …Read More
This petition goes out for all of our children who are victims of the family court judges of the movement of court corruption and for the children who were and are about to be illegally taken from loving and fit parents in the very near future due to the Father’s Rights Movement, the “good ol’ boy” system and Kids for Cash. This petition is to…Read More
A national, nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens' organization documenting how judges break the law and get away with it. Our Mission . . . To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by…Read More
Health Impact News Editor Comments Justice John F. Molloy was an attorney in Arizona who went on to serve as a judge on the Arizona Superior Court bench. He is probably best known for his time serving as Chief Justice to Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona, where he authored the famous Miranda decision that was subsequently appealed to the…Read More
Concerned parents were elated this week when a much awaited segue for them to speak came forward as an invitation from the federal government, asking for clarifications on identified problems with child human rights in court, family rights in court and the lack of a uniform structure to respond to child sex abuse investigations, child abuse…Read More
National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA) is recruiting ambassadors for 2013 state legislative sessions outreach to state legislators. Here’s why: Elimination of state judicial self-policing is no longer a preposterous idea entertained by subversives. It happened in Tennessee and is contemplated by multiple state legislators. Yet the…Read More
Meet Bill Windsor's Cyberstalkers Monday, 13 July 2015 03:00 Admin What does a cyberstalker look like? Meet Bill Windsor's Cyberstalkers. Here are most of them - names and photographs... Cyberstalkers are obsessed, unstable, or otherwise mentally ill Sunday, 12 July 2015 23:00 Admin Cyberstalkers are obsessed, unstable, or…Read More
JUDICIAL VACANCIES Senators Disagree over Federal Judicial Nominations “The GOP-controlled Senate is on track this year to confirm the fewest judges since 1969, a dramatic escalation of the long-running partisan feud over the ideological makeup of federal courts,” write Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim in Politico. Some Senate Democrats…Read More
(originally published in Transitions 31(4), November 2013) Observing that a large percentage of cases are settled without a trial, a former family court judge asserted, without stating any basis in fact, that this simply means that “many men recognize that their children will be better cared for by the mother.” To this judge, a father who failed…Read More
I AM BEING DESTROYED PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, AND FINANCIALLY BY PEOPLE WHO ARE APPARENTLY ABOVE THE LAW. The crimes which are clear and well documented are ignored by all levels of law enforcement without any explanation offered. - Click to read the story - A full service Hosting and Development company that is responsive…Read More
Some Central Florida judges, elected by the people, are behaving badly. But are they being held accountable? There are 10 cases alleging misconduct by judges to be decided by Florida's Supreme Court, and of those cases, five of them involved Central Florida judges. The misconduct allegations are of everything from election law…Read More
STATE COURT NEWS FOR MAY 20, 2015 The most recent meeting of the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice was May 15 in Tampa. Watch the meeting. Read other State Court news. PRESS UPDATES FOR JULY 6, 2015 July 2 Opinions Local Solar Electricity…Read More
To end abuse of judicial power through intentional misapplication of the law, preventable errors, etc. Open and transparent government is only a problem to those with something to hide. There is no way to know if a judge has 5 or 500 similar complaints. The criteria for determining probable cause to investigate a judge is confidential and…Read More
Rebellion taking place in our country goes beyond Freddie Gray, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. Our justice system is broken not just for people of color. It is failing all of us. Preserving public respect for our courts is essential to a peaceful democratic society. Spreading unrest in our country shows we have reached the point where we…Read More
Code of Conduct for United States Judges Federal judges must abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and…Read More
In response to a protester who shouted that the judicial system is “corrupt,” a Florida judge ordered the arrest of anyone outside the courthouse, including on certain public sidewalks, who “call(s) into question the integrity of the court or any of its judges.” The order was released July 1 by Judge Mark Mahon of the state’s Fourth Judicial…Read More
February 2011 -- Welcome to NFOJA's public service program, Citizen Panels On Judicial Misconduct. Through this new program NFOJA receives, reviews, and endorses (or opts not to endorse) judicial misconduct complaints before appropriate government agencies. The program is an unofficial, modified version of NFOJA's plan for judicial discipline…Read More
A judge who tried a family court case involving James Boulware — the man who reportedly fired upon Dallas Police headquarters early Saturday and was later killed — said she was threatened multiple times by Boulware and figured he might come after her. James Boulware (Image source: Paris, Texas Police) “It doesn’t surprise me that he did…Read More
Larry Kotlikoff explains how divorce laws differ state by state and argues for a national divorce law. Photo by Getty Images Economist Laurence Kotlikoff, well known for his Ask Larry Social Security column and his best seller, “Get What’s Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security Benefits” (co-authored by our Paul Solman and Philip…Read More
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: Today, a special on "kids for cash," the shocking story of how thousands of children in Pennsylvania were jailed by two corrupt judges who received kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities. HILLARY TRANSUE: I was known for being the…Read More
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: Today, a special on "kids for cash," the shocking story of how thousands of children in Pennsylvania were jailed by two corrupt judges who received kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities. HILLARY TRANSUE: I was known for being the…Read More
Chris Christie has been named as a defendant in two cases that are part of series of lawsuits across the country where serious concerns about violations of citizens’ rights in family courts are under scrutiny. CALIFORNIA An upcoming civil RICO lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the watchdog group Family Court Accountability Coalition (FCAC)…Read More
Plaintiffs have hereby posed the following questions to the Federal Court: Jan 23, 2015 — A. Do child custody proceedings and family laws violate substantive due process rights of fit parents, as contrary to the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence that state courts are not to enter the family realm without a compelling interest? B. Does a…Read More
Family Court Proceedings Violate 6th Amendment Rights and Miranda Law Jan 25, 2015 — Excerpt from an upcoming RICO case: "Furthermore, the averments as stated herein speak to a violation by the Defendants of Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment rights, as this persecution of the Plaintiffs was quasi-criminal in nature. As such, the Defendants violated…Read More
Child custody proceedings are daily affecting the lives and fundamental and constitutional rights of millions of parents, children and families. Each year, 5.7 million domestic orders are decided in state courts, dominated by divorce. Add cases reopened to modify support, custody, visitation, and we have an epidemic.
Karin Wolf has brought an action under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and 42 USC §1983 to combat fraud and vindicate federal constitutional rights in State Court. U.S. District Court, Newark, Case No. 14-cv-5985, Wolf v. Escala, et al. Family Courts across the country are running an Enterprise, through a calculated…Read More
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name is Roger Pilon. I am a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies. I want to thank Chairman Hyde of the committee and Chairman Coble of the subcommittee for their invitations to me to testify on the important issue of…Read More
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that Broward Circuit Judge Laura Marie Watson be removed from the bench, saying in an opinion that her actions as a practicing attorney were “fundamentally inconsistent” with the responsibilities of being a judge. The ruling stems from allegations of professional misconduct by Judge Watson in a complex…Read More
DETROIT (WXYZ) - A federal judge has ruled that a couple's lawsuit against a Wayne County judge can go forward. They accuse family court Judge Judy Hartsfield of improperly having their son removed from their custody, relying on pre-signed child-removal orders filled out by a clerk. "It was an unbelievable nightmare. Far worse than the death…Read More
Children’s Bill of Rights WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn’t forget — and kids shouldn’t let them — when the family is in the midst of a break-up. You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both…Read More
NEW JERSEY — Half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce, but some experts say getting through the family court system can be like going through purgatory. They describe the process as fraudulent, corrupt, and sometimes deadly. And the case of the Seidle family, which dozens of witnesses watched play out on a New Jersey street this…Read More
The FBI could use our help. No more custody for cash! Published on June 3, 2014 We intend to organize a national conference on family law reform in Washington, D.C. on November 15th and 16th, 2014. Family Law Reform Published on May 31, 2014 We intend to organize a national conference on family law reform in Washington, D.C. on…Read More
When the law gets hopelessly bogged down, as is true of our present divorce law, reform is best accomplished by a fresh start from a new premise. That has been the history of the evolution and growth of our legal system. —Reginald Heber Smith, “Dishonest Divorce,” Atlantic Monthly, 1947 THE SUPPORT GROUP Every Monday evening in the…Read More
The Divorce Corp Wiki, Familypedia, is a place where you can come to learn about family law reform efforts from around the United States or contribute information about all things related to family law and family law reform yourself. We hope this becomes a resource for information about family law statutes, case law, regulations, and professional…Read More
(WXYZ) - It is a story that inspired outrage. Carnell Alexander says he got a shock during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 1990s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, and that he was under arrest. The problem? Carnell didn’t have any kids. He’d been made dad by default after an ex listed him as father when applying for welfare…Read More
I had to deal with CPS with my own children. They tried to terminate my parental rights but I fought back and won an appeal. I was told that I was the 2nd person in Napa County to get an extension on my family services. The judge gave me 3 more months. All I needed was 2 weeks more to complete the last thing on my list of court ordered…Read More
Judges continually are biased in favor of the alimony recipient, and punishes the alimony payer. Judges continually will not issue restraining orders against women (from men), and I've actually had a judge say to me "I don't use evidence--I just go by my gut feeling.", when I had audio, text, and email evidence of clear harassment. The family…Read More
Due to the unequally treatment of fathers by the family court system and the usd if money by greedy lawyers who don't care about the families the destroy. To bad parents who use their kids to find loop holes to take away a child's love of their parent.
I've been reduced to a visitor with my daughter. I've been repeatedly denied more time with her by her mother. Reasons are simply because our daughter is adjusting to our scheduled visitations. No,this isn't about Mother's vs. Fathers it's about "parents ". Please help all parents in this situation to gain a uniform parenting time guidelines.
Because I have a child that is been in the system for a lot of years and they are getting money for him, However mental health is a big problem in the UNITED STATES. But all I am seeing is that they are using our kids for profit. And the prisons are full of them already, the nexted generation is suffering for what reasons, Because they are going…Read More
This cause matters to me as the parent of a special needs adult in Washington DC. We are being hauled off to court and having our rights terminated to allow the District and their providers to do as they please. even as the dictates of the providers are not good for the children/adults. We need to see these cases as connected and ultimately…Read More
Release the Court Transcript; if there is no injustice to hide Please sign if you value free speech and an open internet. This is just one example of why: This is an URGENT cause seeking to place pressure on Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service / UK Ministry of Justice to release the transcript of a criminal court hearing in Yate, UK, on…Read More
"So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view,…Read More
KAPAAO - Kids Aiding Parental Alienation Awareness Organization ~ Here are some resources to consider if you are looking for books, movies…Read More
July 31, 2014– Yesterday, we released the formal complaint in the federal lawsuit filed by parental advocate, Dr. Leon R. Koziol on July 29, 2014. As explained, it challenges First Amendment censorship and state retributions upon Dr. Koziol’s testimony before the New York (Moreland) Commission on Public Corruption. In less than twenty-four hours,…Read More
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ************************************************ LEON R. KOZIOL, individually and as natural parent of Child A and Child B Plaintiff, -against- COMPLAINT Case No. DANIEL KING, individually and as New York Family Court Judge; JAMES GORMAN, individually and as Family Court…Read More
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
PRO SE RIGHTS: Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION Written by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
OPINION: Lucrative divorce industry stands between divorced parents and kids
One lawyer advocating against change billed $370,000 in one custody case.
I want to thank The Daily Republic and its staff this past legislative session for covering a very tough subject: kids’ right to as much time as possible with both parents in a divorce (i.e., shared parenting) in South Dakota.
While the bill failed again this year, we hope for continued support, because this issue isn’t going away. Our current standard placement model is keeping great parents and extended family out of our kids’ lives, and the laws are out of date and creating more problems than they solve.
What will it take to bring about change? That’s tough to answer, because the divorce industry has quite a stranglehold on the Legislature.
The State Bar Family Law Committee gives the recommendations for the visitation guidelines to the state Supreme Court. The people who should be giving these recommendations are not attorneys, but rather therapists, teachers, counselors and psychologists. Unfortunately, many noncustodial parents don’t have the money to fight these rulings made by these guidelines and many judges rule in accordance with the guidelines, because that’s what they believe the Supreme Court says is best.
Only five spoke out this year against the Kids Need Both Parents bill in committee: three attorneys, the State Bar and a domestic violence group. All of them stand to financially lose if parents are granted more equal time with their children in a divorce. The scare tactics of how terrible it would be to presume it is in a child’s best interest to have as much time as possible with both parents were atrocious, and at best were decades-old arguments that, across the nation, state by state, others are realizing couldn’t be further from the truth.
Rapid City attorney Linda Lea Viken, a member of the State Bar’s Family Law Commitee, was among those to testify against a rebuttable presumption of involving both parents equally at a time of divorce and said “the system works fine as it is.” Viken, in one custody case alone, billed more than $370,000 (Schieffer v. Schieffer) just this past year.
Why would someone who can make quite a living off conflict in a custody case thanks to our current adversarial system want anything to change? Very few parents who want equal and meaningful contact with their kids can afford $370,000.
Viken lost in Schieffer v. Schieffer, with the state Supreme Court apparently seeing the benefit of more equitable parenting time for both parents when there are two fit parents.
So, what will it take for our circuit court judges to start extending these same benefits to a family at the initial time of divorce, not after they’ve financially given up everything to fight simply for fair time with their kids? And when will the Legislature begin listening to the growing voice of their constituents asking for change, versus the few voices of a financially lucrative industry?
In South Dakota as a whole, we are good people, and generally speaking, the parents of our children are great parents, so why in divorce do we assume one parent gets four days per month as stated in the visitation guidelines? It is time to stop treating every custody case in South Dakota as if one parent is a drug-abusing child molester and start assuming we have two good, stable, loving parents and then decide what is best for the child.
Mitchell’s own Sen. Mike Vehle has argued against shared parenting, comparing some parents in South Dakota to Charlie Sheen and comparing divorce to the Middle East conflicts.
Yet there is not one study in the past 30 years that says an every-other-weekend or four-days-per-month custody schedule for noncustodial parents is good for kids, and that is what South Dakota’s system is still based upon.
— Casey Wilson, of Flandreau and formerly of Plankinton, has been a leader in the effort to pass legislation known as the Kids Need Both Parents bill.
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
What is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
OPINION: Lucrative divorce industry stands between divorced parents and kids
ReplyDeleteOne lawyer advocating against change billed $370,000 in one custody case.
I want to thank The Daily Republic and its staff this past legislative session for covering a very tough subject: kids’ right to as much time as possible with both parents in a divorce (i.e., shared parenting) in South Dakota.
While the bill failed again this year, we hope for continued support, because this issue isn’t going away. Our current standard placement model is keeping great parents and extended family out of our kids’ lives, and the laws are out of date and creating more problems than they solve.
What will it take to bring about change? That’s tough to answer, because the divorce industry has quite a stranglehold on the Legislature.
The State Bar Family Law Committee gives the recommendations for the visitation guidelines to the state Supreme Court. The people who should be giving these recommendations are not attorneys, but rather therapists, teachers, counselors and psychologists. Unfortunately, many noncustodial parents don’t have the money to fight these rulings made by these guidelines and many judges rule in accordance with the guidelines, because that’s what they believe the Supreme Court says is best.
Only five spoke out this year against the Kids Need Both Parents bill in committee: three attorneys, the State Bar and a domestic violence group. All of them stand to financially lose if parents are granted more equal time with their children in a divorce. The scare tactics of how terrible it would be to presume it is in a child’s best interest to have as much time as possible with both parents were atrocious, and at best were decades-old arguments that, across the nation, state by state, others are realizing couldn’t be further from the truth.
Rapid City attorney Linda Lea Viken, a member of the State Bar’s Family Law Commitee, was among those to testify against a rebuttable presumption of involving both parents equally at a time of divorce and said “the system works fine as it is.” Viken, in one custody case alone, billed more than $370,000 (Schieffer v. Schieffer) just this past year.
Why would someone who can make quite a living off conflict in a custody case thanks to our current adversarial system want anything to change? Very few parents who want equal and meaningful contact with their kids can afford $370,000.
Viken lost in Schieffer v. Schieffer, with the state Supreme Court apparently seeing the benefit of more equitable parenting time for both parents when there are two fit parents.
So, what will it take for our circuit court judges to start extending these same benefits to a family at the initial time of divorce, not after they’ve financially given up everything to fight simply for fair time with their kids? And when will the Legislature begin listening to the growing voice of their constituents asking for change, versus the few voices of a financially lucrative industry?
In South Dakota as a whole, we are good people, and generally speaking, the parents of our children are great parents, so why in divorce do we assume one parent gets four days per month as stated in the visitation guidelines? It is time to stop treating every custody case in South Dakota as if one parent is a drug-abusing child molester and start assuming we have two good, stable, loving parents and then decide what is best for the child.
Mitchell’s own Sen. Mike Vehle has argued against shared parenting, comparing some parents in South Dakota to Charlie Sheen and comparing divorce to the Middle East conflicts.
Yet there is not one study in the past 30 years that says an every-other-weekend or four-days-per-month custody schedule for noncustodial parents is good for kids, and that is what South Dakota’s system is still based upon.
— Casey Wilson, of Flandreau and formerly of Plankinton, has been a leader in the effort to pass legislation known as the Kids Need Both Parents bill.
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?
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
ReplyDelete~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
ReplyDelete~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS