STANDING ORDER FOR FAMILY LAW CASES ~ FLORIDA

Post Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.

United States Supreme Court to Enact Federal Parenting Plan Legislation

Parenting plan legislation requires or permits the parties to a custody dispute to detail how they plan to allocate decision-making and care-giving responsibilities between themselves. In a very small number of states, they are mandatory. In most states that have adopted this kind of legislation, however, they are voluntary.

Several states have enacted parenting plan legislation.

Recognizing that the adversarial approach to allocating parental rights and responsibilities is a burden on the courts, unhealthy for parents, and detrimental to children’s psychological interests and well-being, some states are beginning to explore alternative methods of dealing with custody issues.

STANDING ORDER BY FLORIDA JUDGE

Post Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.

Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.

CHILDREN OF DIVORCE ~ The Greatest Taboo?

In 2002, I "successfully" represented myself for almost 3 years in my divorce and for our son. I became knowledgeable in Family Court litigation and I believed then that in Family Courts all of the lawyers and Judges were  driven to serve Justice and protect the best interests of my child, family, and therefore, unconsciously participated in the court proceedings for my daughter Zoraya. 

Later on when my Paternity Suit started in 2008, I learned that these proceedings, the Lawyers and Judges that drive to serve Justice were nothing short of a swindle. 

I have observed countless families needlessly damaged and financially exploited by this system. 

Predictably, my efforts to reform the system were answered by government retaliation of my civil rights and fundamental human rights causing career damage, intentional and negligent emotional distress, and child abuse upon my daughter. Reported and ignored!! 

When families are compelled by law into court for dispute resolution, their members do not realize how much child-rearing freedoms they surrender to outsiders. The arbitrary mandate of naming a “custodial parent” begins the damaging process.

I AM A DEDICATED FATHER WITHOUT COMMISSION OF ANY CRIME OR UNFIT PARENTING.

Children should not be allowed to drive the visitation bus!

Post by David Inguanzo.

By Linda J. Gottlieb, L.M.F.T., L.C.S.W. ~

To any rational, mature, objective parent or professional, the reason for this declaration could be justified by merely pondering the following question: "How reassured would you feel if you were standing trial for a crime, and your jury was comprised entirely of 18-year-olds?"

The reason children should not be empowered to make a decision about visitation with a parent is as obvious as why no one would feel comfortable having only 18 year olds sitting in judgment of us. A child's judgment, insight, perception, reality testing, and emotions only barely reach maturity by the END of adolescence. One only has to read the epistemological research and studies undertaken by Jean Piaget, philosopher and developmental psychologist, who wrote the "Bible" upon which educators rely to understand the cognitive development of children.

Children do not have the emotional and cognitive abilities do evaluate for themselves what is in their best interests; to theorize what it would be like to have a parent eradicated from their lives; to be able to discriminate what is rational, truthful, and moral amidst all the information their parents and other adults impart to them---especially about the malicious, fabricated, and fanciful data from the alienating parent. Children, for example, think very concretely until the age of 8; that is why they actually do believe, "Step on a crack, break my mother's back."

Not until much older, can they discriminate reality from fantasy, which is why they should not see horror shows until much older. The ability to think abstractly starts at the beginning of adolescence and is still insufficiently mature by 18. Children lack wisdom! And children further do not have the emotional wherewithal to contradict the alienating parent----if that parent is the residential parent----as they are so dependent upon that parent.

So to placate the alienated parent regarding the visit refusal, the court sanctions it by making an ineffective order for the child to undergo a course of individual therapy in the hopes of readying the child for a relationship with the alienated parent. Every time I hear the unsubstantiated platitude for the therapist, "to prepare the child for contact with the alienated parent," I want to erupt.

Because of their immature cognitive and emotional abilities as previously discussed, children do not possess the facility for abstraction. They cannot participate in a theoretical discussion about what an appropriate relationship entails; nor can they comprehend a desire for something in the abstraction. A child, therefore, cannot have a discussion about desiring a relationship with someone who is in the absentia----especially a brainwashed child; nor can a child participate in determining what to expect from the relationship with that "someone."

The gift of parenting children is the single greatest blessing and experience an individual can enjoy in life

The gift of parenting children is the single greatest blessing and experience an individual can enjoy in life. Therefore to me, parenting rights are not a “special rights” concern; they are a “human rights” concern.

So, I want to ask where you stand on an important political issue: Family Law Reform.

As you may or may not be aware, our current system of Family Law has devolved into one in which a whole host of Family Court Industry players are profiteering from the minimization or elimination of parenting time and rights for non-custodial parents.

Many custodial parents, lawyers, parenting plan evaluators, supervised parenting services, States, friends of the Court social workers, many Courts, and others; are making money by using children as an excuse to exploit non-custodial parents, causing irreparable harm to both children and their parents in the process.

I, and a rapidly growing base of many others, would like this to stop. More specifically, we are asking for five primary reforms to Family Law:

The presumption of 50/50 custody and parenting rights during and after divorce. We are NOT asking for a REQUIREMENT of 50/50, because we still want parents to be able to decide for themselves what works best for them. However, in the event that case goes to trial, instead of having the NCP being forced to rise to a high standard to show why they should have time with their children, I believe it’s far healthier (for both parents and children) for the parent contesting this time to be required to rise to a high standard to show why the NCP should NOT have equal time with their children. And while this may dramatically hit the financial accounts of those who are using children for profit by creating or aggravating conditions of conflict, this reform will affect far healthier outcomes for families.

I would like reforms to child support calculations. More specifically, an elimination of financial incentives for minimizing or eliminating a non-custodial parent’s time with their little ones. As it sits now, there are basically two pieces to the child support calculation: (1) An actual physical needs worksheet, and (2) A tax-free income redistribution; with the Court establishing the higher of the two as the child support order. I recognize that custodial parents may need some time to adjust after divorce, and I have no problems with alimony/maintenance. However, I would like the alimony portion of child support to be eliminated. If a CP wants to better their lifestyle, they can put the work into bettering themselves just like NCP’S are often admonished to do. Children are NOT tax-free income producing assets, and NCP’s are NOT indentured servants.

Reforms to child support enforcement: If one wants to accomplish a goal, it helps establish good or helpful conditions to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the Family Court has become accustomed to pathological and often draconian measures for enforcement in which the civil rights of NCP’s are systematically ignored or eliminated through administrative court procedures. If a person loses their job, or becomes ill or disabled, it makes no sense what so ever, to take away their driver’s license, vocational license, destroy their credit, throw them in jail, or force them into homelessness. How does this help to ensure the support gets caught-up? It doesn’t. It simply makes the problem worse and sets the non-custodial parent up for future, life-destroying failures. Truthfully, current regimes for enforcement that treat "deadbroke" parents as common criminals are completely inappropriate.

Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458 "Incentive Payments To States": I have no problem, in theory, with states being rewarded for child support enforcement. However, I have a big problem with States profiting from it, and a REALLY big problem with the lack of resources available to NCP’s for visitation enforcement. For little or no cost, a CP can have the state pursue civil or criminal remedies for delinquent child support. However, an NCP in reality, must hire an attorney if his or her visitation orders are being ignored, and often, these orders are not enforced with anywhere near the same severity by the Court as they are with child support orders. And I’m confident this is happening in large part, due to the financial interests of those parties noted in paragraph four. Therefore, if there is going to be Federal incentives for the enforcement of Family Court orders, I want equal weighting and importance put the enforcement of visitation orders. Honestly, the message that money is more important than a parent’s relationship and the emotional well-being of children is remarkably disgusting. I simply can’t tolerate that kind of worldview.

VAWA reform. I agree that victims of abuse and violence need the ability to feel safe in swiftly seeking the protection of the Justice system. However, fraudulent allegations of abuse made during Family Court are getting out of control. This is a gender-neutral problem, and it seems it now boils down to which party can launch this nuclear attack first. There are no remedies available to the victims of fraudulent allegations – none, and the damage these allegations cause to both children and parents is catastrophic.

The American Bar Association loves to fall back on VAWA as its reasoning for opposing any kind of Family Law reform. However, I can’t help but wonder how much money attorneys and investigators are making from a law that allows someone to be accused of such a serious crime and presumed guilty of it with no credible evidence what-so-ever. Something needs to be done about this, right now.

In short, much of the current political and judicial rationalizing for the current structure of Family Law centers on the concept of what’s “in the best interests of the children”. However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that children are simply being used as a seemingly noble excuse to mask a greedier underlying motive that is causing significant and irreparable harm to parents and children alike.

I understand you can expect to receive significant resistance to my ideas for reform because those parties noted earlier have a great deal to lose when they take place.

However, I’m not concerned about them. I’m concerned about the health and well-being children and parents, and your position on this matter will affect my voting behavior going forward.

Therefore, I will be grateful if you will tell me, in plain and simple words, where you stand on Family Law Reform.

Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,
Let's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate :2015))4 Family Justice Reform!

A Child's Rights

 A child has the right to: • A continuing relationship with both parents. • Be treated not as a piece of property, but as a human being...

"Now that we falsely accused Daddy in Family Court..."

What is the State Domestic Violence Legislative Project? » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

The Violence Against Women Act provides grants to state and local law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and courts to establish and enforce domestic violence laws and policies. But there is a growing belief that many of these policies are harmful to victims and give rise to false allegations.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Post by SAVE Domestic Violence Legislative Project.

Tort Remedies For Interference With Parenting Time (Visitation)

Family court is the greatest fraud

ever perpetrated on the American 

Public.  Family Court / Family Law 

is a made-up business of 

consumer fraud and racketeering



Divorce is rarely easy. Occasionally there will be a tale of couples who amicably splits their assets, share their children, and are successful in co-parenting and raising children who are psychologically sound and happy. They might even vacation together, or be friends. They might share holidays.

What happens when that doesn’t happen — when the opposite occurs? Perhaps there is mental illness, substance abuse, unresolved anger, conflicting beliefs regarding ethics and religion, financial woes, and square in the middle are one or more little people. When divorce that involves child custody turns ugly, is that all there is to it? A divorce that just went very wrong, like the marriage before it?

According to echo.net, clinical psychologist Dr. Craig Childress says it is a situation in which one parent consciously or subconsciously turns their shared children against the other parent, through various means of manipulation. It often involves the premise that one parent falsely accuses the other of abuse and indoctrinates the child into believing that abuse took place, whether it be mental, physical, sexual, or a combination. While there are true cases of abuse, and even times when either parent may have behaved in a way that was not appropriate, what is key is to look at the childrens’ behavior, says Dr. Childress.

Eventually, children can become so indoctrinated and eager to please who they view as the “powerful parent,” they may start hating, harassing, or abusing the targeted parent themselves.

What drives a parental alienator? Most commonly, some type of narcissistic personality features, says Dr. Childress. According to Dr. Childress, parents who indoctrinate children into alienating the other parent are linked to narcissist borderline pathogenic parenting.

The symptoms of narcissism include: grandiosity, entitlement, absence of empathy, haughty, arrogant behavior and delusional belief systems. Although narcissistic personality disorder is listed in the DSM-5, which is considered to be the “Bible” of Psychiatric Disorders, so far Parental Alienation Disorder is not listed. Researchers expect that to soon change.

The late author and child psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner coined the term Parental Alienation Syndrome more than 20 years ago. He characterized the breakdown of previously normal, healthy parent-child relationships during divorce and child custody cases. His definition of parental alienation is simple — one parent deliberately damages, and in many cases destroys, the previously healthy loving relationship between the child and the child’s other parent.

This can be very difficult to prove, although it has been successfully used in the United States to win child custody cases, with custody going to the targeted parent. The reason it is difficult to prove is that one symptom is the child steadfastly refuses they are being indoctrinated by the other parent, and claims their hatred of the other parent is of their own will.

Researcher Amy Baker says that parents who try to alienate their child from the other parent subtlety, or not so subtletly gives a three-part message to the child.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1730517/parental-alienation-syndrome-researchers-say-the-struggle-is-real/#TgdDgt1EIOGUpF3q.99

Tort Remedies For Interference With Parenting Time (Visitation) | Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness | causes.com

Courts generally grant non-custodial parents reasonable Parenting Time rights so that they can maintain and develop their relationship with their children after the marriage has dissolved. The custodial parent, however, may interfere with the Parenting Time forcing the non-custodial parent to seek alternative ways to maintain the parent-child relationship. The traditional remedies are to seek a contempt order, modification of the custody decree, or withhold support payments. The new tort remedies are for intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with Parenting Time.

A. Traditional Remedies

Traditionally, the following three options existed for the non-custodial parent whose Parenting Time rights have been violated: 1) institute an action for civil contempt; 2) seek a modification of the custody decree; 3) withhold child support. These options have proven inadequate for compelling the custodial parent to comply with a court-decreed Parenting Time schedule.

1. Contempt Order

The most familiar remedy used to prevent a violation of Parenting Time rights is to institute a contempt action to compel the parent acting wrongfully to comply with the court ordered Parenting Time schedule. While this is a relatively simple procedure, it does not always prove to be an effective deterrent of future violations and also will not compensate a parent for the injury already realized from the deprivation of their Parenting Time with the child.

2. Modification of Custody Decree

Another remedy that a non-custodial parent may use to prevent interference with child Parenting Time is to ask the court to modify the custody decree and grant them joint or sole custody of the children. Courts have been reluctant to modify custody decrees reasoning that the modification would disrupt the children’s lives and in effect punish them for the custodial parent’s wrongful conduct.

3. Withholding Child Support

When a custodial parent continuously prevents the non-custodial parent from exercising his Parenting Time rights, the Court may allow the non-custodial parent to withhold child support payments as a means of compelling the custodial parent to cooperate with the Parenting Time schedule. This is not the optimal remedy, however, and courts are reluctant to grant this remedy. The primary rationale for this reluctance is the existence of a potential catch-22 situation: child support is withheld because of Parenting Time violations, and Parenting Time is violated because child support is being withheld. The ultimate loser in this situation is the child(ren), therefore courts generally hold that Parenting Time rights are independent of child support payments.

B. Tort Remedies

The traditional alternatives available have been ineffective in preventing the recurrence of Parenting Time violations. Non-custodial parents therefore have turned tort theories to recover damages from the custodial parent and to accomplish uninterrupted Parenting Time. The current trend suggests that the threat of financial liability will discourage a custodial parent from interfering with Parenting Time rights.

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial parent brought suit for damages alleging that:

“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place between the (plaintiff and child).”

Id. at 433.

The Superior Court, Caledonia County, dismissed the complaint for failure to state of cause of action on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court of Vermont, however, found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case for outrageous conduct causing severe...

Related articles

• Kelly Rutherford's appeal to win back child custody denied
• The parental rights of unwed fathers
• The DSM 5 will drug America to death
• We must stop turning children against divorced fathers
• Can you tell your story one more time? - 100's of true Parental Alienation stories
• Caseloads leap as judges retire, forcing long wait for family court cases
• Child Custody for Fathers
• U.S. senators say federal action may be needed to curb 're-homing'
• Difficulties in the Family Courtroom ~ Disparities in State Family Courts
• Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.