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
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were promised to each of us by our founding fathers. And the resulting legal system was intended to protect us and sustain us with reason, fairness and order. But the present state of family lawmakes this harder and harder to achieve – particularly in regards to divorce. Arbitrary laws and a confrontational legal system have created a litigious nightmare for many of us.
Finding Truth 4 Children (FT4C) is a self-censored chronicle of courtroom dramas, lived by people who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence.
Family Law Reform, Inc. was founded upon the same sound promise: that the dream of a decent life, the freedom to pursue it, and the resulting happiness are not for the few, not for those who have the most money or who have the most aggressive attorney, but for each one of us.
Family Law Reform’s most immediate goal is the creation of reasonable guidelines in our Florida divorce law to inform and assist judges in their continuing oversight and orders for alimony. These guidelines would discourage the destructive practice of continued litigation in order to determine a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’. The present adversarial situation is destroying families while creating wealth for the courts and litigating family lawyers.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
See video of an interesting recent Florida divorce case that took 4 years and $100,000 in attorneys fees. The ex-wife ended up in major debt and paying alimony. This is why we need alimony reform in Florida.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that allpleadings
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."
Nothing in this message or the group's archives should be considered legal advise. Please consult an attorney for that stuff because they claim to know these things and will happily charge you a lot of money for sharing their knowledge and experience.
It would seem that maintaining the father’s love and authority would be crucial when a child’s life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.
The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?
We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.
Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.
When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child’s life (that’s why it’s called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child’s life.
An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.
An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason for shared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.
Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent’s judgment about his child’s "best interest."
Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.
This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child’s own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."
An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.
Baskerville’s new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society’s injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.
It is a breakthrough for shared parenting that a noncustodial father, Robert Pedersen, was recently named runner-up in the nationwide Best Life Magazine’s "Hero Dad" Contest. Pedersen is only allowed 6 to 8 days a month with his two children from a previous marriage.
Pedersen has devised a novel way to demonstrate the importance of fathers to children of divorced parents. He is leading an "Equal Parenting Bike Ride" starting in Lansing, Mich., on Aug. 11 and culminating with an Aug. 18 rally in Washington, D.C.
Finding Truth 4 Children (FT4C) is a self-censored chronicle of courtroom dramas, lived by people who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence.
Family Law Reform’s most immediate goal is the creation of reasonable guidelines in our Florida divorce law to inform and assist judges in their continuing oversight and orders for alimony. These guidelines would discourage the destructive practice of continued litigation in order to determine a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’. The present adversarial situation is destroying families while creating wealth for the courts and litigating family lawyers.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
