Faces of the Family Law Crisis

Faces of the Family Court Crisis from James Hall Photography on Vimeo.

A project for Center for Judicial Excellence

Join CJE to Stop Court Crimes

Make Change Happen - Suit up in one of our red shirts for our 2016 YEAR OF ACTION to Stop Court Crimes. Our year of action will focus on legislative advocacy, direct action, media advocacy and … Read more

To learn more go to Center for Judicial Excellence

RECENT NEWS

State DOJ investigating San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services

California Attorney General Kamala … [Read More...]

ACES 2015 Legislative Report Card

CJE's affiliate Advocates for Child Empowerment …[Read More...]

Bad judge: In rare move, state commission publicly sanctions Sacramento Superior Court magistrate

Judge Jaime R. Roman violated due process rights …[Read More...]

Sacramento Superior Court judge admonished for conduct in cases

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jaime Román has …[Read More...]

More News

Kids of Divorce Speak Out

Fight Judicial Child Trafficking The Center for Judicial Excellence has been working for nearly a … Read more

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE YOUR STORY WITH US?

If you are a child or adult survivor of the divorce courts and would like to share your story online or with the news media, please contact us at info@centerforjudicialexcellence.org. Any funders who are interested in supporting the expansion of this project are also encouraged to contact Kathleen Russell at this same email address. Thank you for your interest.

Together, we can fix it!

Because judges don't want a accurate reflection of what takes place in family hearings. Why believe your own eyes and ears when you can just listen to the "honorable judge"? Mandatory recording of ALL family hearings is an issue I am contacting our local legislators to sponsor as a bill to become law/ rule etc.(HINT, HINT, HINT) The majority if not all 20 circuit courts have the ability to record audio/video effortlessly but many judges if not all decline to. If recording family hearings is left to a judge's discretion it won't happen. FYI we don't need a little old lady pecking away at a machine to record hearings it is done digitally and cheaply in a lot of court rooms.

Enact Uniform Parenting Guidelines in Family Law

Repeal Inconsistent Rules and Presumptions - Ask the Family Court to adopt uniform rules requiring equal parenting time

OUR LEGISLATORS CAN PROTECT US FROM THE HORRORS OF FAMILY COURTS TO IMPOSE EQUALITY STANDARDS

Our Constitutional right to bear arms is front and center in state and federal legislatures.  But where is the debate on protecting our basic human rights to parent our children? (also constitutionally protected by the 14th amendment)  Every day in every state, mothers and fathers lose their basic human right to parent their children.

Why?  Because the divorce industry wants your family’s money!  Estimated at $170 Billion annually!  How? We all have a family member, friend or neighbor who has been through a nasty divorce.  Most of us believe children need both parents equally and that there exist a standard of 50/50 custody that the courts start from.

NOT TRUE!!!!  THERE IS NO PARENTING TIME STANDARD!!! THIS LACK OF STANDARD CREATES 90% OF ALL DIVORCE CONFLICT AND DIVORCE LITIGATION!!! IT DESTROYS FAMILIES AND LIVES!!!  STOP IT NOW!!!!!

In litigated divorce, there is no standard as to how children should spend their time between parents.  The lack of a parenting time standard causes our children to be viewed as a prize where unethical lawyers and custody evaluators use them as pawns between parents.  If there were a parenting time standard, it would resolve over half of divorce litigation taking place right now.

MAKE PRESUMPTIVE 50/50 THE REBUTTABLE STANDARD AND ELIMINATE CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Start with the presumption that both parents are fit and entitled to an equal role in their children’s lives.  This presumption is rebuttable only by findings of fact based upon a preponderance of evidence in abuse, neglect or addiction.   Everything else unconstitutionally denies parents their rights to parent children.

ONLY OUR LEGISLATORS CAN PROTECT US FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF DIVORCE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE AND EQUAL STANDARDS

The divorce industry is $170B annually and motivated to oppose standards so they can create, promote and perpetuate conflict to increase billing hours exponentially.  Have you ever heard “It's only the lawyers who win in divorce”?

Add to lawyers: custody evaluators (duplicate roles in some states), criminal lawyers, courts, psychologists, therapists, investigators, GALs, an entire cottage industry of brokers! With overdue and demanded, simple and just changes to state statues, families and children can be forever protected from the ravages of the divorce industry by a simple and equal standard. The lack of a presumptive 50/50 rebuttable standard destroys lives and families, often forever.  Children as pawns can be scared for life, arbitrarily lose a parent, or two, for life and are in much greater peril in life.  Mothers and fathers lose their children and react badly.  Suicide and homicide is not uncommon.  Mothers and fathers can be jailed for protecting their children or going bankrupt.

Post by Childrens Rights Florida.

Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Listen to internet radio with SyndicatedNews on BlogTalkRadio

Family Matters with Wendy Archer

Wendy Archer, Parental Alienation Awareness and Education Advocate, has been involved in Parental Alienation Awareness and the related necessary Family Court Reform since September 2009.  Wendy founded The LRC Foundation Inc, a non-profit Texas Corporation.

Listen to internet radio with SyndicatedNews on BlogTalkRadio

Family Matters visits with Dr. J. Michael Bone

Parental Alienation and Family Court Cases involving Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) are perhaps the most vexing and difficult that exist in Family Court. These cases require careful and painstaking preparation, analysis of voluminous documentation, preparation of experts and collateral witnesses. They can be difficult to demonstrate in court and include arduous steps that exceed the normal representation of a Family Law case without parental alienation. These cases exploit and wear down the system and do so in the service of the alienation.

Listen to internet radio with SyndicatedNews on BlogTalkRadio

Men Matter with Dr. Maguire & Melody Brooke

This project will only be funded if at least $120,000 is pledged by Friday Sep 9, 10:47pm EDT. Hollywood won't make this movie or tell this story. This is not a “politically correct” film, it goes against the current media position on the role of father’s in children’s lives and is NOT something that can be funded through traditional sources. This is an important message. The film needs to reach millions worldwide. To do that we have to do a better job than you typical special interest indie film. Mass appeal demands an entertaining, funny, and well acted film with great production values.

Creemos que debemos unirnos para defender a nuestras familias.

Somos una coalición de ciudadanos de todos los ámbitos de la vida muy preocupados por la seguridad y el bienestar de nuestros niños y familias. Creemos que debemos unirnos para defender a nuestras familias ya que hay gran poder en la unidad: “Uno solo puede ser vencido, pero dos podrán resistir. Y además, la cuerda de tres hilos no se rompe fácilmente” (Eclesiastés 4:12).Somos un ejército de padres defendiendo a nuestros hijos.

If you know someone affected by Family/DCF, please. Class Action Lawsuit filing: http://parentalrightsclassaction.com/ on mid November 2015.

Derechos de los Hombres

Feminismo y el Hombre Desechable

Should children have rights when parents and other family members fight?

The Right to be Heard

The right to be heard is a valuable right. What makes it valuable is both that there is a point to making one's views known and, further, that making one's views known makes a difference. It matters to me that I can speak out on political questions. It matters also, and probably more, if what I say leads to the changes I favour. Correlatively it is true both that I do not want to be silenced and that I do not want the statement of my views to be ineffectual. As a further general point it is clear that there will always be some issues on which it is more important that I be allowed to speak and that what I say about these issues carries weight in determining outcomes. Those are the issues that matter to me, and the more they matter the more important it is that I have the freedom to speak about them and be heard. On one account since children's views should not be ‘authoritative’, that is determinative of what is done, they have only a ‘consultative’ role (Brighouse 2003). They may influence an outcome by, most obviously, providing those who do make the decisions affecting a child's interests with a clearer picture of what in fact is in those interests. On another account encouraging and according a weight to the expression of children's views—even where this is unlikely to affect outcomes in line with the views' content—is valuable just because the child is capable of expressing a view and deserves to be listened to (Archard and Skivenes 2009).

How is it with the child's right to be heard? It will be important for the child to be listened to. But it is also important that the child is heard in the sense that her views are given due consideration and may influence what is done. Note that the child's right to be heard on matters affecting its own interests is a substitute for the liberty right to make one's own choices. The right to be heard is only a right to have the opportunity to influence the person who will otherwise choose for the child. The power to make those choices resides with the adult guardian or representative of the child. All the child retains is the right to try to motivate that adult to choose as the child herself would choose if she was allowed to.

Catholic America | Fathers for Good

CATHOLIC AMERICA

Our faith has informed our nation from the beginning

By Brian Caulfield, Fathers for Good editor

“we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Introducing The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts Radio Show

The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Court Radio Show

Introducing The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts Radio Show 

Call in Number 310-861-2349 

8AM PST Sunday 20 September 2015

False allegations of abuse are grounds for losing timesharing.

Court says: Grandparents' false allegations of abuse grounds for losing visitation

CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has ruled a family court judge erred in not terminating an Elkview couple's visitation rights with their grandson after they falsely accused his adoptive father of abusing him.

The Court on April 14 overruled a decision by Kanawha Family Law Judge Mike Kelly denying a petition filed by Warren Lee and Melissa Arnold to terminate visitation by Melissa's former in-laws, Robin and Janet Lyons, with her son, Jon. In an unanimous memorandum opinion, the Court said the Lyons' attempt to not only halt Warren's adoption of Jon, but also coaching Jon to say Warren abused him was more than sufficient grounds for Kelly to grant the Arnold's petition.

"While a best interests analysis will necessarily include an assessment of the bond and the relationship developed between the child and the grandparents," the Court said, "we disagree with the lower court's determination that the relationship between Jon and his grandparents is of a beneficial nature to Jon under the circumstances present here."

"The particular facts of this case, including the vicious nature of the grandparents' actions to forestall Jon's adoption proceedings, as well as their baseless pursuit of abuse allegations against Jon's adoptive father, illustrate a relationship in constant conflict with that of Jon's parents."

Rocky relationship

According to court records, Melissa was married to the Lyons' son, Jonathon, until 2000. Shortly after their divorce, Jonathon died in a car wreck.

Following her marriage to Warren in 2003, she moved with Jon to Spencer. Two years later, Warren, despite the Lyons' objections, successfully petitioned to adopt Jon.

Prior to Melissa's marriage to Warren, records show she agreed to allow Jon to visit the Lyons. The visitation included at least one overnight stay a month, four hours on Thanksgiving Day and nine hours on Christmas Eve and Dec. 26.

Warren's adoption of Jon became a source of friction between the Arnolds and the Lyons to the point where the Lyons accused him of severely bruising Jon with a belt buckle. Records show Warren was arrested on Dec. 20, 2007, and charged by State Police with felony child abuse.

Three days later, Robin Lyons filed a domestic violence protective order on Jon's behalf against Warren. Records show Kelly granted the order on Jan. 2, 2008, which barred Warren from having any contact with Jon for 90 days.

The same day Kanawha Family Law Judge Jane Charnock Smallridge granted a writ of habeas corpus Melissa filed for Jon's return from the Lyons' custody. Due to the protective order, Warren had to live elsewhere until April 2008.

A month later the child abuse charge was dropped at the request of Roane County Prosecutor Mark Sergent. In his motion for dismissal, Sergent said, "Further investigation and disclosures revealed the charge is likely baseless."

Following his return to Melissa's custody, records show Jon was interviewed by Dr. Timothy Saar, a Charleston psychologist. In the report he issued in July 2008, Saar found that not only did Jon's bruise come from vigorously playing air hockey at a friend's house, but the Lyons also "forced him to lie to the police and report that his father had hit him."

"Jon was coached by his grandparents into accusing his father of abusing him," Saar concluded in his report. "The manipulation of this cognitively impaired child by his grandparents should be considered emotional abuse and should call into question the [grandparents'] ability to care for this child."

Reversal

Armed with this information, the Arnolds on Dec. 5, 2008, petitioned Kelly to terminate the Lyons' visitation rights. In the course of two hearings, he took testimony from Ashley Hunt, one of Saar's interns, and Charleston attorney Jeff Woods, who was appointed as Jon's guardian ad litem, that based on their interviews with Jon it would not be a good idea for him to stop visiting the Lyons.

Despite also hearing from Saar during one of the hearings, who stood by his assessment that the Lyons' attempt to alienate Jon from Warren was psychologically damaging, Kelly concurred with Hunt's and Woods' recommendation "it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents" and denied the Arnold's petition on Nov. 13, 2009. Records show an appeal they filed of Kelly's decision to Kanawha Circuit Court was upheld by Judge Tod J. Kaufman on Dec. 16, 2009.

In reversing Kelly's decision, the Court said "while it is undisputed that Jon loves his grandparents and that he enjoys his time with them," their interference with the Arnold's parental decisions has created a toxic relationship between them. Because of that, the Court determined Jon's interests are best served by the Lyons forfeiting future visitation with him.

"The family court found," the Court said, "and the circuit court affirmed, 'as fact that it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents.' We find this assertion to be clearly wrong in light of the testimony of Dr. Saar, and in light of the visitation's interference with the parent-child relationship."

"It is clear that Dr. Saar testified that it was in the best interests of Jon to terminate his visitation with his grandparents and that nothing had happened to change his initial conclusions," the Court added. "We agree with Dr. Saar that such an environment is psychologically damaging to Jon and, therefore, it is in Jon's best interests to terminate grandparent visitation."

In the appeal, the Arnolds were represented by Charleston attorney Dennis R. Bailey, and the Lyons by Charles L. "Dusty" Phalen Jr., also of Charleston, and a former family lawmaster.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 35679

Fathers are as crucial to a child’s well being as a mother

False Allegations Can Terminate Rights

For reasons I’ve never understood, courts have always been loath to punish these exercises in blatant perjury. Well, now they don’t have to. Simple recognition that false allegations that tend to separate a child from a loving and fit parent themselves constitute a form of child abuse will go a long way toward better custody decisions and in the end fewer false allegations of abuse.

Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Parental rights include any legal obligations that go with being a parent...

...such as the right to custody or visitation, the right and obligation to provide financial support, and the obligation to provide the child with proper care and supervision.

Erasing Dad we need your help
Erasing Dad part 2 will be an international documentary exposing the corruption of the family court system the world over and the dangers of parental alienation (when a child is prevented from loving or seeing his or her mom or dad after a divorce). We need volunteers who can help with fundraising, social media, research, translations, setting up projections of the film and press. Please contact us at info@erasingdad.org
Posted by Borrando a Papá on Wednesday, August 26, 2015

New law declares parental rights ‘fundamental’ - RVANews

Quote

Reforming Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families – from both financial and emotional perspectives.

Posted: Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:30 pm

Christian Paasch
As the month of August, which was declared Child Support Enforcement Month by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, winds down, I encourage the citizens of Virginia to honor Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s recent proclamation well beyond the close of this month by supporting initiatives that work in children’s best interests after divorce or separation. 

Gov. McAuliffe’s charge to ensure “that the children of Virginia have the financial security and family support that they need to grow and succeed” supports the work of Virginia’s Child Support Guidelines Review Panel, and I am honored to be have been appointed to this panel.As our state rethinks these guidelines, we should seriously consider an important first step that honors both McAuliffe’s recent charge and President Reagan’s original declaration, which reads that we “must work even harder to ensure that all American children are provided the financial support they deserve.”This simple, first step is to embrace shared parenting — where children spend as much time as possible with each parent — following divorce or separation. Making this change in Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families — from both financial and emotional perspectives.

*** 

Starting July 1st, parents in Virginia will have "a fundamental right" to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care” of their children.

Gov. Bob McDonnell signed two identical bills on the issue: House Bill 1642, sponsored by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-Williamsburg); and Senate Bill 908, sponsored by Sen. Bryce Reeve (R-Fredericksburg). The bills formally declare parental rights as fundamental, meaning they will have the highest level of legal protection.

“The bill is pre-emptive and will not change any laws in Virginia,” Pogge said in an email. “It will, however, prevent parental rights from being eroded through potential court actions. I am very happy that it was passed and signed. It was important to a lot of people.”

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent Virginia courts from ruling parental rights as “ordinary” rights.

“Fundamental” means these rights cannot be taken away unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. When rights are “ordinary,” the state has more leeway in overriding parents’ decisions.

WHAT PRINCIPLES GUIDE OUR COUNTRY?

 "For any society to grow there has to be a belief system that will advance that society." 

Welcome to new and old members alike! Our organization's focus is on REFORMING CURRENT ALIMONY LAWS IN FLORIDA with an eye on future family law issues. What are our beliefs? Most of us would agree with the principles of the 10 commandments: Don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't be dishonest, etc.  We also agree that we should reward good behavior; however, we often not only do not reward it, but offer no consequences for bad behavior.  This is at the heart of what is wrong with alimony law in the state of Florida. One of the key elements that elevates a society is diversified financial growth.  With more products and services comes more income, which buys more houses, pays for products, food, transportation, medical/dental care, etc.  Almost all the money earned keeps our society moving forward. When we penalize citizens for the sole reason that they are financially successful, it sends the wrong message to our society.  That's exactly what Florida's alimony laws do.  It's called THE ABILITY TO PAY, where an alimony judgement penalizes the person who has more money and, conversely, rewards the spouse who has chosen not to work.  This creates a "need" for the nonworking party which all too often never goes away.  How did this reversal of principles happen? Fighting for the "underdog" has become quite profitable. Many family law attorneys see the income opportunities when a family faces divorce, involving a plethora of expenses that must be paid by the spouse earning the income.  There is no incentive to limit litigation, so many divorces are extremely profitable for family law attorneys, who even take classes in how to penetrate the income producer's finances. It's all about the money.