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
OpenCourt is an experimental project run by WBUR, Boston’s NPR news station, that uses digital technology to make Quincy District Court more accessible to the public. Anyone with an internet connection will be able to see and hear what goes on in court.
A recent Times editorial called for changes to legal education. It argued for “apprentice-style learning” and “more courses that train students” for roles as “advocates and counselors, negotiators and deal-shapers, and problem-solvers” instead of a curriculum where professors grill “students about appellate cases.”
Does the Socratic method still have a role in law school?
Here, the Former Wife's evidence was legally insufficient to meet the statutory requirements for issuance of an injunction against domestic violence. The Former Wife did not testify that she was the victim of any act of domestic violence. The only allegation of any actual violence is that of the pushing incident in February 2008. However, an isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before a petition for injunction is filed will not usually support the issuance of an injunction in the absence of additional current allegations.
Daniel David GILL, Appellant, v. Krystal Ann GILL, Appellee.
No. 2D09-2746.
-- December 29, 2010
Joseph C. Bodiford of Bodiford Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.No appearance for Appellee.
Daniel David Gill (the Former Husband) appeals the final judgment of injunction against domestic violence entered against him and in favor of Krystal Ann Gill (the Former Wife). Because the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing failed to show that the Former Wife was either the victim of domestic violence or that she had an objectively reasonable fear that she was in imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic violence, we reverse the final judgment and vacate the injunction.
The Former Wife filed her petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence in April 2009. In that petition, she alleged that the Former Husband had pushed her during an argument in February 2008. She also alleged that she and the Former Husband engaged in a yelling match outside her house during a custody exchange in April 2009. In the petition, the Former Wife alleged that during the yelling match, the Former Husband “drove his car into me.” The Former Wife did not allege any acts of violence or threatened violence between the parties at any time between February 2008 and April 2009, the parties were currently living separately, and the Former Wife currently had a domestic violence injunction entered against her and in favor of the Former Husband.
In addition to the allegations concerning herself, the Former Wife also alleged in her petition that the Former Husband had beaten and punched the parties' minor child, B.G., in October 2008, November 2008, and April 2009. However, the Former Wife did not seek an injunction for protection against domestic violence in favor of B .G. Based on the allegations in the petition, the trial court issued a preliminary ex parte injunction against domestic violence and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the Former Wife's petition.
At the evidentiary hearing, the Former Wife testified that she arrived home from work on April 15, 2009, to find the Former Husband sitting in his car in her driveway waiting for B.G. to come out of the house. Because she could not park in her driveway, the Former Wife drove to a neighbor's house, parked there, and walked back to the house. While the Former Wife had alleged in her petition that the Former Husband “drove his car at me” when she returned to the house, she did not testify to this act at the evidentiary hearing. Instead, the Former Wife testified only that a yelling match ensued between her and the Former Husband upon her return to the house and that the Former Husband threatened that she would be going to jail for violating the domestic violence injunction against her by approaching his car. The Former Wife also admitted that the Former Husband remained in his car during the entire incident. The Former Husband essentially corroborated the Former Wife's testimony about what had happened between them during this incident.
1. Balance: Mothers are amazing. Fathers are amazing too. But we were created to learn and grow as balanced people. Dad is a unique piece of that puzzle.
2. Parenting at best is a tag-team sport: Reality check - Father does not know best – and neither does Mother. But between them, employing their complimentary gifts, more often than not, they’ll get it right.
3. Mom’s missing something too: We’re not saying a woman is incomplete without a man. What we are saying is that kids miss out twice when there’s no father in the home. Kids whose mom is loved eloquently by their dad have the advantage of a mother who’s loved by a good man. Every child should live in a home like that.
4. Modeling for boys: Boys need to see what it means to live as a man. Men are different in a variety of ways. Boys who see man-stuff, in action, around the home on a day-to-day basis, are at an advantage to be better equipped.
5. Modeling for girls: Most girls are going to get married one day. If they haven’t seen a real live dad, being a good man, day-in day-out, then they have missed a great opportunity to understand what to value and what to look for.
6. The family is a model love-relationship: Love is the great force in relationships. The family is a place where the dynamics of love between a man and a woman work themselves out in the real world. Commitment, faithfulness, forgiveness, discipline, belief – all these and more play out in front of a child’s eyes. Without a dad, this very important part of the function of a family simply is not there, to instruct children. Not having a father present in the home is a huge loss in that regard.
7.The best man: Not every young man is going to ask Dad to be best man at his wedding, but – beyond the ceremonial moment – Dad should be there to fulfill the role from the day his kids start dating to the day they start a family of their own.
8.Loss of focused time: Understand this, a single-parent family is not 50% of a parenting unit. In fact, it’s no fraction of a family - because a single parent family is a bona fide family, period. But, in the metrics of time, a missing dad is irreplaceable in terms of what a dad does while the other parent is doing what they do. No matter how talented mom is, she can’t be duplicated and she is finite in time and space. 9. The cost in innocence: Try this question… When there’s no Dad around for Mom to lean on (and vice-versa), then who is left to play the other grown-up when one’s needed? Just in case you wonder, a grown-up IS often needed. It doesn’t matter how old the kids are, they’re going to step up and fill those shoes prematurely and there’s a cost to go along with that.
10.The cost in security: Ideally, one job Dad does best is carrying the mantle of security for a family. It doesn’t mean he’s always strong physically, and it doesn’t mean that mom is weak. The “Dad” kind of security is a simple fact of biology. But it’s real, and every child without a father loses something intangible that takes its toll in confidence.
The Co-principal Investigators of The Study are Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, with the CDC; and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, with Kaiser Permanente.
Over 17,000 Kaiser patients participating in routine health screening volunteered to participate in The Study. Data resulting from their participation continues to be analyzed; it reveals staggering proof of the health, social, and economic risks that result from childhood trauma.
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.
The 14%er is a newsletter for noncustodial parents. The August issue includes news about an App for Divorce, a poem by Edmond Dantes, and resources to strengthen the parent-child bond. Read it at
Posted by Don Mathis on Sunday, August 2, 2015
Poetry (Footsteps, by Jennifer Lefkowski), Links to Father's Day Articles, Parents Forced to pay Kids' College Costs,...
Posted by Don Mathis on Tuesday, July 7, 2015
