Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts

Wednesday

2017 International Year of Co-Parenting

After the International Year of the Family in 1994 to remind us that the family is the basic unit of society and therefore deserves special attention,
Following the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly entitled "A world fit for children" (S-27/2, 6 May 2002) which recognizes the shared responsibility of parents in the education and upbringing of their children, and the importance of making every effort to ensure that fathers have the opportunity to participate in the lives of their children,
In noting a transformation of family patterns in recent decades characterized among other things by an increase in the number of separated families and therefore the risk of disengagement of a parent,
we ask for :
An international year to increase the awareness of the general public and all the elected officials in every nation on the equal importance of the roles of both parents – be they together, separated or divorced – in the upbringing of their child(ren).
A year to create opportunities and find solutions to promote and above all value the commitment of each parent to their children); a year to focus on action and results, by the exchange of good practices.
A year to rethink greater equity (particularly in parenting time) between the two parents in case of separation / divorce in the best interest of the child.
A year to recognize the prime role of each parent and celebrate the commitment of both parents towards their (s) child (ren).
A year to remember that each child has two unique parents - father and mother – with the same rights and responsibilities to provide the best possible living conditions, to give him/her affection, assistance and protection, education, to encourage the development of his/her personality, to transmit values.
In this perspective, regardless of political allegiances, social or religious beliefs, father, mother, grandmother or grandfather, or just a citizen committed to human rights, we ask the General Assembly of the United Nations to declare 2017 : International Year of co-parenting.

Important !

Thursday

Family Court - Source of the Corruption?



Unhappy with child-custody award, woman and parents plotted to murder her ex-husband and his mom - ABA Journal »
A former elementary school teacher and her father pleaded guilty Thursday to their admitted roles in a plot to murder her former husband because they were unhappy with a child-custody award in the couple’s divorce case.
Then, after onetime third-grade teacher Kathleen Dorsett was arrested in the 2010 slaying of Stephen Moore, her mother, Lesley Dorsett, met with the jailed woman to plot the slaying of the dead victim’s mother, according to theAsbury Park Press and the Associated Press.
“The goal was to kill (her) because we were afraid she was going to testify,” Lesley Dorsett told a New Jersey judge during a hearing in Freehold. The Dorsetts also were reportedly unhappy because Evlyn Moore was awarded custody of her young granddaughter after the murder of her son.
However, Evlyn Moore was not harmed and attended Thursday’s court hearing. “I’m as satisfied today as I will ever be,” she told reporters afterward. “I feel that Stephen has gotten justice today.”
Lesley Dorsett, a former member of the Ocean Township school board, pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiracy to commit murder. Her husband and daughter pleaded guilty to murder and other charges.
The plot unraveled after Lesley Dorsett handed over an envelope filled with cash to the hit man she thought she was hiring to kill Evlyn Moore. In fact, he was an undercover cop who had been tipped by Kathleen Dorsett’s cellmate, according to the newspaper articles.
Prosecutors are expected to recommended an eight-year prison term for Lesley Dorsett, and 58 years, with no parole for at least 51 years, for her 38-year-old daughter, when the two are sentenced in August along with Thomas Dorsett, 66. He faces a potential 50-year sentence, with no parole for 30 years.
See also:
Asbury Park Press: “Inmate can testify about talks with woman charged with killing ex-husband”


Friday

UNITED WE STAND FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS

Our mission is to help unite all parents groups into a single voice to change the gender biased, unfair, money driven and corrupt family legal system.
The "Divorce and Domestic Violence INDUSTRY" is out of control and is literally ruining the lives of millions of parents and children daily. Buckle your seat belts because what you are about to learn is a bit unbelievable.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the average custody battle now costs $78,000! This is a $50 billion industry that destroys children for profit because all the research shows that sole custody is harmful to children (see Fatherless Statistics page on left for proof and sources of this research), driving up social problems and pathologies 14,600%. This is the #1 social problem of our time because it is the root cause of at least 20 other social problems including: teen suicide, mass murder, crime, drug usage, parental suicide, teen pregnancy and even over 50% of all mental health problems in the U.S. today. The divorce industry is essentially a criminal racket that is destroying society for its profit motives! Literally!

To eliminate this problem both parents MUST have equal custody rights in EVERY divorce by default, unless there is real proof of harm to a child in front of a jury! The divorce system has become nothing but a cash cow and power machine for lawyer$, judge$ and other government bureaucrats.

This system hurts families and children every day for its own convenience and profit totally ignoring the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is an ILLEGAL kangaroo court. These people have lost touch with "We the people . ."


Family courts today are not a solution for divorcing parents, but a hindrance to the process and very harmful to children and families. Most state family courts operate unconstitutionally, without regard to the highest laws of the land by ignoring supreme court rulings, case law and the many fundamental guarantees of the U.S. and state constitution. Calling them "kangaroo courts" would be too generous as kangaroo courts go through the motions to pretend there is justice and due process - family courts often issue "judgments" without a trial or even an evidentiary hearing, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court to even limit parental rights.


Judges generate "temporary orders" that almost always become permanent to lull you into the belief there will be "real due process" later. There is not any. Most often orders are 100% based on your personal plumbing, not anything that is appropriate given the best interests of children, which we know is almost always near equal time with both parents. Even fathers that are primary caregivers, or spend equal time parenting are generally forced out of their children's lives. In many states, like Massachusetts, there is an order for sole physical custody over 90% of the time! This has been proven by science to be the worst possible scenario for children.

This type of behavior by the courts is by definition tyranny.

Abuse of the people by the court system is why many left England for America. History is repeating itself. The courts are hurting families for the financial gain of states, lawyers, judges and a spiraling government bureaucracy. Basically it is run for the "insiders" not for the benefits of citizens and families.

Today men are treated like criminals in these courts, and not even believed, so that the judge can do whatever they want. You are guilty until proven innocent as a man, and innocent until proven guilty as a woman. This is illegal and in fact an act of treason by judges because they are intentionally ignoring the law.

Remain an Equal Parent to your Child!

Spouses and parent must work around the system and not feed it money. They must use mediators who are not lawyers and divide both children's time and assets fairly. Lawyers will bait you into fights and create an unequal playing field on purpose to generate legal fees. Some lawyers target 40% of your estate before they "let you settle". This is essentially a criminal conspiracy, fraud and anti-trust. It has become so common that they even think it is okay to do, when it is like a doctor injecting you with a disease so they can sell you a cure.



Find over 1,200 pages of information helpful to people trapped in the broken, for-profit divorce system.

Monday

Incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court Experts enjoy immunity from malpractice claims

centre
centre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An article in the July-August edition of Private Eye magazine highlights a controversial loophole which could allow incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court experts to practice whilst enjoying immunity from malpractice claims.
Private Eye

Professor Jane Ireland’s 2012 report detailing serious concerns about the quality of expert evidence from Family Court psychiatrists and psychologists – it found that over 20% of psychologists  in  family cases  were  unqualified  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality – is also mentioned in the Private Eye piece.

Redacted version of the Private Eye piece below:
“A gaping hole in the regulation of psychologists could put the public at risk from unscrupulous, inept or unaccountable ‘experts’.
Providing  psychologists  don’t  use  one  of  nine  so-called  ‘protected  titles’  –  for  example,  educational,  clinical,  or  forensic  – any  can  offer  their  services  without  the  need  to  be  registered  and  regulated  by  the  U.K.’s  watchdog,  the  Health  and  Care Professions  Council  (HCPC).  Even  if  serious  concerns  or  complaints  are  raised  about  them,  they  remain  immune  from investigation  because  they’re  not  registered.
Nowhere  is  the  danger  of  the  regulatory  body’s  impotence  more  starkly  illustrated  than  in  the  courts,  where  it  seems  that unregistered,  unqualified  and  potentially  unfit  psychologists  can  operate  as  ‘experts’  in  even  the  most  serious  cases  of murder,  rape  or  child  sexual  exploitation.  No-one  illustrates  this  absurd  Catch-22  better  than  ‘consultant  psychologist’ [edited],  who  has  acted  as  an  expert  in  several  high-profile  cases,  including  the  [edited]  child  grooming  case,  where a  gang  raped  and  trafficked  underage  girls.
[Edited],  a  trained  educational  psychologist  who  used  to  work  in  local  government,  has  been  the  subject  of  at  least  four complaints,  including  manipulating  data  and  acting  beyond  his  qualifications  and  expertise.  Three  have  not  been  investigated because  he  has  never  been  registered  with  the  HCPC.  Because  of  the  fourth,  his  application  for  registration  in  2012  was refused,  when  he  was  judged  to  be  ‘not  of  good  character’.
According  to  his  website,  [edited]  also  acts  in  the  family  courts  in  sensitive  child  contact  and  care  cases,  in  what  looks  like a  clear  breach  of  new  guidelines  from  the  Family  Justice  Council  (a  public  body  which  advises  on  family  justice  matters) and  the  industry  body  the  British  Psychological  Society  (BPS).  The  guidelines  state  that  family  courts  expect  all psychologists  acting  as  experts  to  be  HCPC-registered  unless  they  are  academics.
In  fact  his  website  offers  services  in  several  of  the  areas  of  expertise  covered  by  protected  titles  (educational,  forensic, practitioner,  counselling),  again  contrary  to  what  the  BPS  says  in  its  online  directory  of  chartered  psychologists  (in  which [edited]  is  listed).  It  says  that  ‘anyone  offering  services  within  these  [protected  title]  areas  must also  be  registered’  with  the HCPC.
[Edited]  website  logo  even  uses  the  word  ‘educational’  –  but  because  he  simply  chooses  to  call  himself  a  ‘consultant’,  the HCPC  maintains  he  is  not  misusing  a  protected  title  and  thus  it  can’t  act.  It  adds  that  statutory  regulation  and corresponding  regulatory  titles  are  decided  by  the  government,  and  it’s  for  ministers  to  change  them.  The  BPS,  meanwhile, says  it  now  only  ‘advises’  on  standards  and  best  practice,  ‘but  where  we  are  aware  of  gaps  in  regulation,  we  raise  these with  the  regulator’  –  i.e.  the  HCPC!
The  BPS  says  it  can’t  comment  on  individual  members,  but  adds  that  it  has  raised  concerns  that  the  general  title ‘psychologist’  is  not  protected.  It  still  seems  happy  to  promote  [edited],  though.
As  the  HCPC  admits,  [edited]  is  not  the  only  one  dancing  rings  around  registration.  Prof.  Jane  Ireland  –  author  of  a damning  2012  study  which  triggered  the  recent  family  court  reform,  having  found  that  one  in  five  psychologists  in  family cases  was  working  beyond  their  expertise  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality  –  tells  the Eye:  ‘All  practising  psychologists  who  act  as  expert  witnesses  should  be  regulated  so  that  the  public  are  protected’.
[Edited]  was  refused  registration  because  of  ‘concerns  about  his  character’  after  staff  at  [edited]  Young  offenders Institution  asked  in  2012  for  proof  of  identity  and,  er,  HCPC  registration.  It  triggered  lengthy  and  ‘inappropriate’ correspondence  between  [edited]  and  the  jail.  An  HCPC  regulatory  panel  threw  out  his  appeal  in  2013,  saying  he  was completely  unable  to  accept  that  his  written  outbursts  had  been  unacceptable,  that  he  had  demonstrated  no  insight  into  the potential  consequences  and  that  he  had  shown  no  remorse.  The  panel  said  that  he  had  displayed  a  similar  attitude  in communication  with  the  HCPC  itself,  that  it  could  not  rule  out  a  repetition  of  similar  behaviour  and  that  his  conduct  would ‘damage  public  confidence  in  the  regulatory  process’.
[Edited]  response  to  the  three  complaints  made  by  fellow  psychologists  has  been  to  fire  off  counter-allegations,  the  irony being  that  those  properly  registered  and  regulated  complainants  then  find  themselves  under  HCPC  investigation,  while  he escapes.
Thus,  in  the  [edited]  grooming  case,  [edited],  a  registered  chartered  psychologist,  was  so  alarmed  to  find  an unregistered  educational  psychologist,  whom  she  considered  neither  qualified  to  reach  his  conclusions  about  an  adult  sex attacker  nor  completely  open  about  those  conclusions,  that  she  complained  to  both  the  HCPC  and  the  BPS.  She  was  told neither  could  do  anything.  Instead  she  herself  was  investigated  when  [edited]  fired  off  a  counterblast.  ‘It  was  very  irritating, but  of  course  there  was  no  merit  in  his  complaints  and  they  were  all  swiftly  dismissed,’  she  told  the  Eye.  [Edited]  boasts on  his  website  about  the  [edited]  case:  ‘Of  the  seven  men  convicted,  five  were  given  life  sentences.  The  man  I  assessed was  given  a  sentence  substantially  below  that  of  his  co-defendants,  and  without  a  tariff’.
Another  victim  of  [edited]’s  revenge  salvos  was  [edited],  an  academic  and  leading  clinical  and  forensic psychologist.  After  taking  advice,  he  complained  to  the  then  regulator,  the  BPS,  that  [edited] had  manipulated  IQ  test scores  in  the  trial  of  a  man  accused  in  2008  of  converting  replica  weapons  into  firearms  used  in  a  series  of  murders.  It made  the  man  appear  less  intelligent,  and  therefore  less  culpable.  [The academic]  told  the  Court  at  the  time  he  had  ‘never encountered  such  extraordinary  conduct  before’.  In  the  event  it  seems  [edited]  evidence  held  little  or  no  sway:  the defendant  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  life.
When  [edited]  duly  counter-complained,  however,  the  BPS  decided  to  investigate  [edited] complaint  first.  It  swiftly  exonerated [the academic];  but  it  never  got  round  to  investigating  [edited] because,  in  the  meantime,  fitness  to  practise  and  regulatory issues  had  been  passed  to  the  HCPC.  [The academic] told  the  Eye:  ‘Guidelines  indicate  that  the  need  to  protect  clients from  unsafe  practice  from  psychological  experts  and  professional  witnesses  is  paramount.  But  there  is  absolutely  no protection  if  a  psychologist  is  not  registered’.
In  a  third  case  involving  [edited],  while  he  again  escaped  investigation  of  complaints  about  his  expertise  and  findings,  it took  almost  two  years  before  his  unfounded  counter-allegations  against  a  registered  psychologist  were  dismissed  –  this  time with  an  HCPC  apology.
No-one  can  say  whether  the  complaints  about  [edited]  would  have  been  upheld.  The  scandal  is  that  because  he  can  so easily  act  outside  the  regulatory  system,  no-one  even  bothers  to  consider  them.”
What changes would you like to see in the regulation of Family Court experts? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Wednesday

We have a Civil Right to be presumed "FIT AND EQUAL" Parents to our Children

"We have a Civil Right to be Parents."

In 21st Century America many believe all our Civil Rights have been recognized. To mention a few: freedom of speech and religion, personal liberty, equal treatment for women and people of color. All foundations of a healthy society. But what about the security of family, the right of parents to raise and nurture their own children?

When my son Domenic was born I'd never thought about Family Rights. I had a two-parent family. None of my friends had been in a custody battle. I assumed I'd be able to share the same love and attention on my son as my parents did with me. The painful experience of a divorce taught me that I was very wrong.

I discovered, as have many parents, that if my relationship with my child is challenged by a former spouse or even a social worker, my child and I have no right to family. A trial may occur, but there will be no jury of my peers. A lone judge will decide what's in the "best interest" of my child. This could include limited or no contact with a loving parent for an entire childhood. 

I've come to believe we have a Civil Right to be presumed FIT & EQUAL parents to our children, unless you are convicted in a criminal court of being a demonstrated threat to your kids.

Good, average, and poor parents are all FIT & EQUAL parents.

Why? Because one foundation of morality is the supremacy of individual conscience - what many know as "let your conscience be your guide." What more natural obligation does any parent have than to care for their own kids? To be present in their lives in the many roles that only a parent can fill.



1778. Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right....

1782. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience...."

Monday

Child Refusing To See Parent


This was in response to a growing number of fathers claiming they were being denied access to their children while women's groups were claiming they were not, and that the men only wanted to abuse the mothers.

The HHS received funding to do an initial summary study of five states, with more funding once that was completed to do the rest of the US.

The "Survey of Absent Parents" was a sampling of divorce case files, in which children were involved, extending back ten years, to determine if there had been any filings to enforce access rights on behalf of the non-custodial parents, which in the 80s was the father in 99% of the cases.Congressional Hearing Graphic

South Florida Family Law Reform
Powered by Scoop.it
   
   
   
   
An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father. We asked Democratic and Republican Primary Candidates ~ How can you address the fatherlessness epidemic? ~ Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39 percent (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers. ~ 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers. ~ According to 72.2 % of the U.S. population, fatherlessness is the most significant family or social problem facing America. ~ Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. ~ Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family. With the increasing number of premarital births and a continuing high divorce rate, the proportion of children living with just one parent rose from 9.1% in 1960 to 20.7% in 2012. Currently, 55.1% of all black children, 31.1% of all Hispanic children, and 20.7% of all white children are living in single-parent homes. White children born in the 1950-1954 period spent only 8% of their childhood with just one parent; black children spent 22%. Of those born in 1980, by one estimate, white children can be expected to spend 31% of their childhood years with one parent, and black children 59%. You’ve heard about the crisis of fatherlessness and the negative consequences for children and for our society. Even if you are an involved dad, until we are successful, your children and grandchildren will be growing up in a culture of absent fathers and unfathered children. They will be affected! You can be a part of the solution!
   
   
   
   
   
Fatherlessness is associated with almost every societal ill facing our country’s children. An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father. We asked Democratic and Republican Primary Candidates ~ How can you address the fatherlessness epidemic? ~ Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39 percent (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers. ~ 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers. ~ According to 72.2 % of the U.S. population, fatherlessness is the most significant family or social problem facing America. ~ Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. ~ Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family. With the increasing number of premarital births and a continuing high divorce rate, the proportion of children living with just one parent rose from 9.1% in 1960 to 20.7% in 2012. Currently, 55.1% of all black children, 31.1% of all Hispanic children, and 20.7% of all white children are living in single-parent homes. White children born in the 1950-1954 period spent only 8% of their childhood with just one parent; black children spent 22%. Of those born in 1980, by one estimate, white children can be expected to spend 31% of their childhood years with one parent, and black children 59%. You’ve heard about the crisis of fatherlessness and the negative consequences for children and for our society. Even if you are an involved dad, until we are successful, your children and grandchildren will be growing up in a culture of absent fathers and unfathered children. They will be affected! You can be a part of the solution!
   

Take Action Now!

Children's Rights Florida

Florida Family Law Reform

Family Law Community

Search This Blog

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

Abuse (7) Abuse of power (1) Abuse of process (5) Admission to practice law (3) Adversarial system (79) Advocacy group (3) African American (1) Alienator (1) Alimony (7) All Pro Dad (1) All rights reserved (1) Allegation (2) Alliance for Justice (2) American Civil Liberties Union (3) American Psychological Association (1) Americans (2) Anecdotal evidence (2) Anti-discrimination law (1) Arrest (1) Bar association (1) Best interests (41) Bill (law) (1) British Psychological Society (1) Broward County (1) Broward County Public Schools (2) Brown University (1) Catholic Church (1) Center for Public Integrity (2) Chief judge (25) Child Abuse (48) Child custody (76) Child development (6) Child neglect (2) Child protection (15) Child Protective Services (18) Child Support (61) Children (3) Children's Rights (83) Christine Lagarde (1) Christmas (3) Circuit court (3) Civil and political rights (14) Civil law (common law) (1) Civil liberties (9) Civil Rights (143) Civil rights movement (1) Class action (1) Communist Party of Cuba (1) Confidentiality (1) Constitutional law (1) Constitutional right (5) Contact (law) (10) Contempt of court (2) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1) Coparenting (27) Copyright (1) Copyright infringement (1) Corruption (1) Court Enabled PAS (90) Court order (2) Cuba (1) Cuban Missile Crisis (1) Cuban Revolution (1) Custodial Parent (1) Declaratory judgment (3) Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact (109) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2) Divorce (121) Divorce Corp (3) Divorce Court (1) Documentary (22) Domestic Violence (51) Dr. Stephen Baskerville (5) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1) DSM-5 (1) DSM-IV Codes (1) Due Process (44) Due Process Clause (1) Dwyane Wade (1) Easter (1) Equal-time rule (2) Ethics (1) Events (9) Exposé (group) (1) Facebook (19) Fair use (1) False accusation (4) False Accusations (56) Family (1) Family (biology) (2) Family Court (192) Family Law (107) Family Law Reform (115) Family Rights (86) Family therapy (10) Father (12) Father figure (2) Father's Day (1) Father's Rights (12) Fatherhood (105) Fatherlessness Epidemic (4) Fathers 4 Justice (3) Fathers' rights movement (44) Fidel Castro (1) Florida (209) Florida Attorney General (6) Florida Circuit Courts (18) florida lawyers (29) Florida Legislature (6) Florida Senate (10) Foster care (1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1) Fraud (1) Free Speech (1) Freedom of speech (1) Frivolous litigation (1) Fundamental rights (12) Gender equality (1) Government Accountability Project (2) Government interest (2) Grandparent (3) Havana (1) Healthy Children (14) Human Rights (117) Human rights commission (1) I Love My Daughter (55) I Love My Son (8) Injunction (1) Innocence Project (1) Investigative journalism (1) Jason Patric (2) JavaScript (1) Joint custody (8) Joint custody (United States) (16) Judge (4) Judge Judy (7) Judge Manno-Schurr (53) Judicial Accountability (100) Judicial Immunity (6) Judicial misconduct (8) Judicial Reform (3) Judicial Watch (2) Judiciary (3) Jury trial (1) Kids for cash scandal (1) Law (1) Lawsuit (8) Lawyer (8) Legal Abuse (147) Liar Joel Greenberg (15) Linda Gottlieb (1) Litigant in person (1) Little Havana (1) Marriage (6) Matt O'Connor (1) Men's rights movement (1) Mental disorder (1) Mental health (2) Meyer v. Nebraska (1) Miami (43) Miami-Dade County (8) Miami-Dade County Public Schools (1) Miscarriage of justice (40) Mother (4) Motion of no confidence (1) Movie (4) Music (8) Nancy Schaefer (1) National Fatherhood Initiative (1) Natural and legal rights (1) News (86) Nixa Maria Rose (15) Non-governmental organization (1) Noncustodial parent (4) Organizations (56) Palm Beach County (1) Parent (35) Parental Alienation (115) Parental alienation syndrome (15) Parental Rights (36) Parenting (12) Parenting plan (5) Parenting time (7) Parents' rights movement (38) Paternity (law) (1) Personal Story (22) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1) Pope (1) Posttraumatic stress disorder (27) President of Cuba (1) Pro Se (29) Pro se legal representation in the United States (3) Prosecutor (1) Protest (1) Psychological manipulation (1) Psychologist (1) Public accommodations (1) Public Awareness (105) Raúl Castro (1) Re-Post/Re-Blog (12) Research (1) Restraining order (4) Rick Scott (12) Second-class citizen (1) Self Representation-Pro Se (31) Sexism (1) Sexual abuse (2) Sexual assault (1) Shared Parenting (90) Single parent (6) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1) Social Issues (57) Social Media (1) Spanish (8) Stand Up For Zoraya (46) State school (1) Student (1) Supreme Court of Florida (7) Supreme Court of the United States (5) Testimony (23) Thanksgiving (1) The Florida Bar (9) The Good Men Project (1) Trauma (4) Troxel v. Granville (1) True Story (21) Turner v. Rogers (1) United States (24) United States Congress (1) United States Constitution (1) United States Department of Justice (4) Videos (50) Violence Against Women Act (1) Whistle-blower (3)