"Fathers targeted and undermined by family court's process"

FATHERS WHO DO THE RIGHT THING

We believe that if we “take the high road” and “do the right thing” by other family members, that the Justice system will recognize that when considering motions and making rulings.  We believe we will be able to get a fair outcome as good parents, and that we will be allowed to provide for and protect our children.

If we are present in our kids’ lives, contributing and working to balance many challenges, we should be recognized for our value, and supported in our roles.

We believe that the professionals will factor in the evidence and truth of our lives, and use everything in their power – within what our laws allow – to help us help our children.

Large numbers of fathers have found that NOT to be the case.

We are alarmed at the number of pending cases in the Atlanta area involving the use of false allegations against good parents.  The fathers we are getting to know are revealing that their attorneys have the evidence needed to defend them and to correct the situation, or to avoid it to begin with, but for some reason are not pursuing balance for these dads.

But guess what?  False allegations are not just something that is used against fathers, which is what we hear so often.  Mothers are being falsely accused as well:  of abusing children, of being violent, and of “alienating” their children when the facts show that it is the other parent – with the help of certain custody experts and attorneys – who is behaving badly.  

It is simply more profitable for select professionals to introduce and push false allegations. It doesn’t matter to them which parent gets hurt, or worse, that the kids are suffering in all of these cases.  Damaging children this way ensures future litigation, and makes it easier for these professionals to collect more in fees from the current case.  A good parent falsely accused will be forced to leverage everything they have, including assets from other family members, to deal with the false allegations and to help their children cope.

My Advocate Center does publish much on damages to children, where mothers are the targeted or damaged parent, but the reality is this:

• Fathers who are good to their children & who want to do the right thing are JUST as likely to be targeted and undermined by this process – by certain professionals – as are mothers.
• We serve as many fathers as we do mothers, because our mission is about helping children access the best that BOTH parents have to offer.
• Regardless of whether the mother or the father is put at a disadvantage & penalized for standing up for their kids and their rights, the kids are always harmed.
• False allegations are now commonly enabled, and used by certain attorneys and custody experts to increase their profits, and more and more fathers are disadvantaged and damaged this way.
• This is something that men often do not see coming.  Once they realize what is happening, it is too late, but no one fore-warned them how to protect against it.
• “Dysfunctional” comes in all shapes and sizes, as does vindictiveness, addiction & the ill-natured use of children as pawns.  We work to help good parents overcome challenges presented in high-conflict situations, and that includes helping good men stay in the lives of their children.

Case studies will be published showing how too many fathers are being set up to fail in child custody disputes.  Our case studies will also dispel some myths about which parent is likely to lose the most.

Our Executive Director, Deb Beacham, spoke on this in January and will enlist more professionals and parents in the debate starting this Spring.  

Dr. Drew explains the need to focus on family court: National premiere, January 9th, Atlanta, Georgia.  Join Deb Beacham & other experts to help solve these issues.

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.

Psychiatric Ploys in Family Courts

Florida Psychotherapist Patient Privilege 

Protecting Mental Health Records in Divorces and other Family Law Cases

Divorce and family law cases sometimes get ugly.  And, in ugly cases, it is not uncommon for one or both of the parties to have a personality disorder or other mental health condition.  Under certain circumstances, a party's mental health is legitimately relevant to a proper determination of child custody or alimony.  Many times, however, there are improper motivations for seeking confidential mental health records and information.  Your family law attorney should know when this evidence is subject to discovery.

A party to a divorce or family law proceeding normally has the right to prevent disclosure of communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, including alcoholism and other drug addiction.  See Fla. Stat. § 90.503(2).  This privilege applies to communications between a patient and a psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist.  Id.  The term "psychotherapist" is broadly defined, and includes doctors, psychologists, therapists, social workers, drug and alcohol abuse counselors, and nurse practitioners who are engaged primarily in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition. See Fla. Stat. § 90.503(1)(a).

This psychotherapist-patient privilege, however, is not absolute.  In a child custody dispute, the mental and physical health of both parents is a factor that must be considered by the trial judge in determining the best interests of the children. See Leonard v. Leonard, 673 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).  A party does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege merely by seeking child custody. See Leonard, 673 So. 2d at 99.  But, in situations where a calamitous event such as an attempted suicide occurs during a pending custody dispute have courts have found that the mental health of the parent is sufficiently at issue to warrant an exception to the statutory privilege. See, e.g.,Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

In extreme circumstances, evidence concerning the party's mental health is so vital to a proper determination of custody that a patient-litigant exception to the privilege is justified.  Id.  The rationale for this exception is that a litigant waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege by proceeding on a claim for custody where the party's mental condition is an essential element.

Absent a "calamitous event," the law requires courts to preserve the privilege. See, e.g., Koch v. Koch, 961 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Courts will not find a waiver of the privilege based on mere allegations of mental or emotional instability. See Leonard, 673 So. 2d at 99. Competent substantial evidence is required. "To hold otherwise would eviscerate the privilege; a party seeking privileged information would obtain it simply by alleging mental infirmity." Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544, 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

If evidence of mental health is still necessary in a custody case, the more appropriate method of securing the information is to require an independent psychological or psychiatric examination of the parent or parents. Schouw v. Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this way, the trial court balances the need to determine the parents' mental health as it relates to the best interest of the child, and the need to maintain the confidentiality between a treating psychotherapist and the patient.  Id.

Courts have also upheld the psychotherapist-patient privilege when a parent is trying to obtain information or records concerning a child's mental health. See Attorney ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Kasdaglis v. Dep't of Health, 827 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that social worker is under no obligation to furnish privileged therapy records of a sixteen year old to the child's mother without the child's consent).  The statutory privilege applies to children, and parents do not have standing to waive the privilege.  See Attorney ad Litem for D.K., 780 So. 2d at 307.   If a child lacks the age or maturity to make a decision concerning the waiver or invocation of the privilege, the court should appoint an attorney ad litem for the child.  Id. at 308.

In Attorney ad Litem for DK, the court explained its reasoning:

We recognize the tension apparent in the law between the rights and responsibilities of parents and the rights of children. Certainly, to promote strong families, parents should be involved and active in the lives of their children, including their health care, for which the parents are held responsible. Unfortunately, sometimes the parents are the cause of abuse, both emotional and physical, of their children. Allowing parents complete access to their children's health care records under all circumstances may inhibit the child from seeking or succeeding in treatment. The tension between the child's need for confidentiality and privacy to promote healing may conflict with the need of the court for information to inform its judgment as to the child's best interest. 

See Attorney ad Litem for D.K., 780 So. 2d at 308.  Courts have also held that even a court appointed guardian ad litem for the child may be excluded from accessing the child's confidential mental health records.

If you have questions about how mental health issues might affect your rights in a family law case, contact an experienced Florida family law attorney.

Post by Childrens Rights Florida.

Attorney David Schorr slapped a court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit for telling the judge deciding a custody battle with his estranged wife that he was an unfit parent — for refusing to take his son to the fast food joint for dinner.

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."