INGUANZO v. ROSE ~ Case No. 2008-029595-FC17 ~ Father filed Petition on December 4th, 2008
2nd Presiding Judge - Judge Dennis
3rd Presiding Judge - Judge Silverman
<~~4th Presiding Judge - Judge Manno-Schurr
Friday
Saturday
Effects of Trauma and Family Court Cases Seminar at 11th Judicial Circuit Family Courthouse in Miami-Dade County
Effects of Trauma on Family Court Cases:
What is Trauma and Why We Must Address It?
By Linda FieldstoneSupervisor Family Court Services 11th Jud. Cir. ~Although prevalence estimates vary, there is consensus that high percentages of justice-involved women and men have experienced serious trauma throughout their lifetime. The reverberating effect of trauma experiences can challenge a person’s capacity for recovery and pose significant barriers to maintaining healthy relationships, adjusting to life transitions and accessing services, often resulting in an increased risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system and affecting their family court cases. Cindy A. Schwartz, MS, MBA, Consultant to SAMSHA’s National Center for Trauma Informed Care, will offer insights into how to interact with people in ways that help to engage them in services, keep them out of the criminal justice system, ease processing through the system, and avoid re-traumatizing. Justin Volpe, Certified Peer Specialist Consultant, will demonstrate how the application of effective practices can divert a trauma victim from self-destructive behavior to actions that can promote more productive responses when involved in family court actions.
at Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse.
 |
| Post by End Parental Alienation. |
Family Court Services and their presenters from SAMSHA failed to address how Family Court can cause a person severe emotional distress that LEADS to the Trauma (Physical and Psychological Injury). They did discuss how trauma leads to mental and physical illness. The big question of the afternoon: “Which came first the chicken or the egg?
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).”
The Superior Court, Caledonia County
Post Traumatic Stress (PTSD) causes a victim to re-experience the trauma–usually after they are triggered by a specific reminder. Not only does the trauma play in their mind but their body chemically responds, also going back to that place of trauma. The reminders can happen in the day during vivid flashbacks or, at night with nightmares or panic attacks. PTSD has a variety of symptoms including (but not limited to): feeling numb, becoming extra sensitive to stimuli (hyper arousal), outbursts of anger, avoiding the places or reminders of trauma, losing interest in things you once enjoyed, exaggerated startle response, feeling disconnected and depression.
Friday
The Pursuit Of Happiness
Published on May 23, 2012
*I do not own the video*
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
No Copyright Intended.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
No Copyright Intended.
Category
License
Standard YouTube License
Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980).
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
Thursday
“The Termination of Parental Rights is the ‘Death Sentence’ of the Family Courts,” ~ Illinois Supreme Court
Parental Rights to Return to Supreme Court?
It’s a dilemma faced by too many already: What do you do when a social worker and a deputy stand at your door and tell you, “Let us in to look around, or we will remove your child(ren)?” According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ultimatum does not constitute coercion. If you let them in your house, you have done so willingly and waived your Fourth Amendment rights in the process.
The Supreme Court of Illinois, which in the 1970’s declared that “the termination of parental rights is the ‘death sentence’ of the family courts,” might strongly disagree. So do our allies at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which is why they are appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviews hundreds of cases every year for appeal and only selects to hear a few of those, so there is no guarantee that Loudermilk v. Arpaio will be heard. HSLDA, however, filed a petition for writ of certiorari last week seeking the Court’s attention.
“The Loudermilk case is key because the Supreme Court has never ruled that state social services employees cannot use a threat to remove children to coerce entry,” HSLDA said in a statement. But such a threat seems to be a standard technique used to separate scared and confused parents from their children without a warrant or imminent danger.
Wednesday
We Must Accept Finite Disappointment, But Never Lose Infinite Hope
A "traditional" division of parental roles during a marriage should not of itself mean that the father should not be considered as a custodian following divorce;
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Friday, November 28, 2014
"My children are a gift that God gave me. The state did not receive those children from God and then forward them on to me with conditions. God gave those children to me. I will stand before Him to be judged on how I raise my children, and I don't believe it's appropriate for the state to step in and either play God-- or play parent." - Utah Senator Mark Madsen, during floor debate on Utah's HB13.
Tuesday
Straight men have much to gain from these relationships, which may provide a legal foundation to challenge laws that unfairly target and punish men, and their children.
Family courts and the exploitation of the legal system,".
Posted by Family Justice & Child Protection Worldwide Reform Committee on Wednesday, August 5, 2015
The New Civil Rights Movement - Same sex marriages have the potential to challenge laws and customs surrounding marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence that currently discriminate against men on the basis of gender. Straight men have much to gain from these relationships, which may provide a legal foundation to challenge laws that unfairly target and punish men, and their children.
Same sex marriages also provide an opportunity to examine domestic violence laws that legally discriminate against men by assuming they are perpetrators on the basis of their gender alone. Same sex partnerships are more violent in general than heterosexual relationships, with lesbians reporting the highest rates of intimate violence. When violent spouses are both women, or both men, it becomes necessary to examine evidence to determine which spouse is legally responsible for the violence, and may increasingly lead to domestic violence being understood as a problem that is perpetrated and experienced by both spouses equally.
Courts are slowly evolving to enforce child custody arrangements and punish parents who refuse to abide by court orders, although it is not unusual for men to go years never seeing their children, while paying court mandated child support. Parental alienation has received attention in the press recently after Bill Hudson disowned his children with actress Goldie Hawn, whom he accuses of deliberately ‘poisoning’ his children against him. Parental alienation is made easier when mothers engage damaging and false stereotypes about fathers, a situation that will not exist for same sex parents. Courts may treat parental alienation more seriously when there are no sexist stereotypes to engage, and instead see alienation as the controlling and abusive behavior it is.
Sunday
Missing Zoraya
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Saturday, August 8, 2015
How you can help~~> Pledge to
Stand Up For Zoraya
- Reinstate visitation with her dad
Civil Rights are violated, Human Rights are violated; and the United States Constitution is not on the agenda. Causes —...
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Sunday, August 9, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
