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
It’s never easy for a Dad or a woman’s father figure to give away his “little girl” to the man she loves, but it’s such an extraordinary gesture that means the world to both of you. One Dad wasn’t sure how to tell his daughter how much she meant to him on her special day, so he decided to do something extra special to let her know he will always love her.
Kevin McKeeveratNYC Dads Group -*By Dave Lesser, NYC Dads Group Guest Contributor* "It is the best job I've ever had ... but the pay sucks." That’s what I tell people when they ask how I like being a stay-at-home dad to two kids. And it's true. I love so many things about doing what I do. I get to laugh and play for a living. And there's important work to be done. I mold minds, for crying out loud! I nurture bruised knees and bruised feelings. I hear the lessons I teach and the words I say repeated back to me in the world's most adorable voices. Some of the words are not totally age-appropriate, but that makes the...more »
— The most carefully concealed skeleton in Judges' closets.
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years. In 1820, he was taken by his owner, Peter Blow, to Missouri, where he was later purchased by U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson. After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois. Illinois, a free state, had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a state.
In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, which was located in the Wisconsin territory (in what would become the state of Minnesota). Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including the location of Fort Snelling, was a part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson, a slave who had been acquired by Emerson at the fort.
In 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.
Before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana. There Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between Iowa and Illinois. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. Finkelman suggests that in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods in a free state. This was Louisiana state precedent for more than 20 years.
Toward the end of 1838, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Eliza returned to St. Louis with their slaves Scott and Harriet, while Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the Army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Eliza inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, but Eliza Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Most scholars today (as did many contemporary lawyers) consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave blacks full citizenship. As of 2007 it is widely regarded by scholars as the worst decision made by the United States Supreme Court.
But Schlafly’s most startling revelation is the origin of judicial supremacy. The tyranny of judges stems not from the modest claims of Marbury v. Madison but from the infamous DredScott decision—the most carefully concealed skeleton in the judicial supremacists’ closet. In spite of everything, Schlafly concludes, the Constitution is on democracy’s side. It provides all the tools necessary—if only we’ll use them—to rescue America from the tyranny of judges.
The gravest threat to American democracy is the supreme power of judges over political, social, and economic policy. In this bracing indictment, Phyllis Schlafly exposes the courts’ fifty-year conquest of legislative authority, made possible by presidents, congressmen, and voters who surrendered without a fight. The Supremacists is both a warning that self-government is in peril and a battle plan for overthrowing the tyranny of judges.
Kevin Roy, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, is an expert on fatherhood and social policy. His new book, Nurturing Dads, challenges ideas about mainstream fatherhood and discusses ways to encourage meaningful engagement among different kinds of dads and their kids. His conversation with Center Director Julie Drizin follows:
DRIZIN: Why did you and Bill Marsiglio decide to write Nurturing Dads?
ROY: Bill was approached by the Russell Sage Foundation to think about a book on fatherhood and social policy. We’ve been working together for probably about 10 years and we really have been working on this idea of nurturance as being pretty important for fathering. Typically when anyone in social policy or even popular media talks about fathers, its’ a very traditional stereotype. It’s guys who are providing for their kids and residing and married to their partner-- you see that a lot with Father’s Day. You get these very typical images of ties and blah blah. But we know through the work I’ve been doing that men and families and their interaction with kids and family members is so diverse, and really has been changing a lot in the past couple decades.
So what we focus on is nurturance, and that’s the relationship of men with children and families… Providing and residing in marriage and the relationships with mothers and the kids are still important, they don’t go away, but we really thought, here’s a policy book that shows what men are thinking, what they want out of policy and law, which is a way to support their efforts to be nurturing providers or nurturing caregivers really…
As always it is a pleasure and an honor to greet you and thank you for your continuing support as well as to welcome new members of our Facebook Group “Children’s Rights”
It will the second Easter that I cannot spend with my daughter Zoraya thanks to her mother’s unscrupulous, unethical, and delinquent attitude towards parenthood. I, however, forgive her.
“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.” ~ Mother Theresa
However, my son David, Zoraya’s half-brother, is with me as his mother knows that I have and will always be a great Dad (those are her words). In the meantime I look at the Father’s Day greeting card I received from Zoraya’s mother one year before she was born where she writes that my son David is “lucky” to have me as a father. Just know that I will never give up and will eventually get what I deserve but more importantly, Zoraya will get what she deserves…the opportunity to be with her “Great Dad.”
The following is from from Mr. Jeffries’ website – A FAMILY HEARTBREAK.
A day for alienated children.
How ironic that this year Parental Alienation Awareness Day falls the day after Easter Sunday and right in the middle of Passover — two holidays known for bringing families together.
A day for alienated children
Targeted parents who won’t be with their alienated children on the holidays this year can join other parents and children for the 6th Annual Parental Alienation Awareness Day on April 25. Events are scheduled in communities in 22 different countries. These family-friendly events include local dignitaries reading proclamations supporting parental alienation awareness, information tables and free brochures with details about about local parental alienation support groups and resources, and ”Bubbles of Love,” a synchronized bubble blowing exercise.
Meet Michael McCarty, an American father whose son was kidnapped by his Italian ex-wife. Now engaged in an exhausting transatlantic custody battle, Michael takes a moment to appreciate the beauty of Rome, Italy, albeit bittersweet.
This exclusive clip is part of the Dateline report 'Exclusive Memo #42405185
Divorced Parents: Kids Should Decide Where They Live/Custody
Divorce can be ugly, but it doesn't have to be ugly for the kids.
Parents who are divorcing often get sucked into a nasty competition when it comes to the kids, with each parent vying for custody of the kids. Of course, both parents often want to keep the kids with them, which frequently results in joint custody. Once the arrangement is set, the kids shuffle between Mom's and Dad's respective houses, while the parents often avoid asking the kids what they want to do or with whom they want to live.
Well, the truth is that there are endless misconceptions about divorce and its effect on kids. Many people feel that divorce is psychologically harmful for kids, though the research - and I'm referring to Judith Wallerstein's research, in particular - actually shows that divorce does not harm children over the long-term unless other factors come into play. For example, divorced parents who maintain a bitter relationship post-divorce and talk badly about each other to the kids can cause kids major anxiety and distress. But aside from such instances, there are many things that divorced parents can do to limit the harm caused to the kids.
One thing divorced parents can do is make an ongoing effort to check in with the kids about how they feel about the assigned living arrangements. While children are young (10 years or younger), joint custody can provide an important reminder to the kids that their parents still love them and will both remain a fundamental part of the kids' lives. Yet the problem often starts when the kids get a little older.
Once kids reach the puberty years, they start to have a more active social life. During this time, kids start to develop the beginnings of an adult identity, and they start to make some of their own decisions. As they reach adolescence, kids of divorced parents understandably want more control over their environment, including where and with whom they live. Plus, as kids get older, the homework increases and their extracurricular activities become more involved. In other words, gathering all their stuff (books, notebooks, special articles of clothing, sports equipment, etc.) and dragging everything from one house to the other gets difficult. If a child in this situation doesn't particularly want to live with one of the parents, the child will become resentful and the resentment will manifest in a variety of acting-out behaviors.
If you are a parent who shares joint custody with your ex and your child is approaching the teenage years, set your own feelings and ego aside and ask your child how he or she feels about the living arrangements. Sure, it can be awfully hurtful to give up time with a child you adore, but sometimes letting someone go (a little) is the best way to show your love for them. Most importantly, divorced parents need to remember that the child did not choose for his or her parents to get married or divorced, so they should suffer as little as a possible as a result of the failed relationship.
Ultimately, talk-talk-talk to your child. Give your child a space to say how he or she really feels about the living arrangements, and try not react too emotionally to whatever they say. Though navigating these years can be difficult, the most successful parent-child relationships will always be those where the child feels that his or her feelings are respected.
If it turns out that your child would prefer to live with the other parent, work on developing a compromise that makes your child feel heard and simultaneously allows you to still spend meaningful time with your child. The teenage years are a great time to make an adjustment to the living arrangements, which could include the following: rotating houses in intervals of one or two weeks, as opposed to every few days; one parent having the child during the academic year, while the other has the child during the summer; maintaining the usual plan of 50/50 time during the academic year, but living with only one of the parents during the summer.
Ultimately, the point is to listen to your child, focus more on his or her feelings than your own, and model how to compromise. If you compromise with your child about custody now, you might find twenty years from now that your relationship with your child is stronger because of it.
As a grandparent, do I have the right to visit my grandchild?
Grandparents only have the right to ask for visitation. They do not have a guaranteed right to visit and see their grandchildren. If you currently have a visitation court order, you have the right to have that order enforced.
How do I get to visit my grandchildren?
Every family is different and you know your family best when it comes to deciding how to resolve any family problems. It is recommended to first try to work out visits with the child’s parents. Talk to the parents and tell them you miss your grandchild. You may also try to have a neutral person, such as a mediator, help you with this. Each Family Court in New York City has a mediation program. If you can’t agree or think that you can’t talk about the problem with each other, then go to court and file papers for visitation.
What do I have to show the court in order to have visits with my grandchildren?
You must first show that you have what “standing.” Standing gives you the right to ask for visitation with your grandchild. If one of the parents is deceased, then you have standing to ask for visits without having to show anything else. If both parents are living, you must show that you either have a positive existing relationship with your grandchild but are not allowed to see your grandchild or that the parents have not allowed you to have a relationship with your grandchild but that you have tried to have one. Once you show you have a relationship or that you haven’t been allowed to have one, you must then show it is in the “best interests” of the child to visit with you.
What does “best interests” mean?
There is no one way to define this. The court will look at what you’ve done to be part of your grandchild’s life. Did you call, visit, and spend time with your grandchild? Do you know what your grandchild likes? Do you help your grandchild with school or try to help him or her learn? Did your grandchild enjoy time with you?
Do the parents have to be divorced or no longer together for me to go to court to seek visitation with my grandchildren?
No. A court can order visitation even when parents are together with the children if the parents won’t let the grandparents visit the grandchild
How do I show I have a relationship with my grandchild if the parents won’t let me spend
time with my grandchild?
You must show that you’ve made enough of an effort to try to have a relationship with your grandchild.
The court may look at several things to find out whether or not you’ve done this. You can do this by
sending them birthday cards or gifts. You can write them letters. You can call them and try to let them
know that you love them. Do your best to say good things about the parents, even if you are not getting
along. Do not make your grandchildren feel like they have to choose between their parents or
grandparents. The court wants to see that the child won’t be harmed by visiting with you.
What if the parents are strongly opposed to my seeing my grandchildren?
This is not enough. The court will consider what the parents want and will look at why the parents don’t
want you to visit with the child. The court may look at what has happened between you and the parents.
Each case is different and you should speak to an attorney if you are unsure about your case.
"For the first time, separating parents will be expected to ensure grandparents continue to have a role in the lives of their children after they split up. Parenting Agreements will be drawn up that explicitly set out contact arrangements for grandparents. These can then be used as evidence in court if a mother or father goes back on the deal."
