Friday

Florida Governor Wages War On Men - Florida Civil Access to Justice

Letter: Governor waging war on men

Posted: May 10, 2013 - 9:37pm

By GORDON E. FINLEY Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Emeritus

Florida International University, Miami

Editor: Yet again Florida’s Medicare Fraudster lies to the citizens of Florida and continues his war on men (“Scott vetoes bill to end permanent alimony,” 5/2/13). His veto letter implicitly lies by suggesting that a half-century of Family Law and Family Court Practice has been a level playing field where both men and women have been treated equally, fairly, and that when men signed permanent alimony agreements they did so of their own free will and free of any duress. Anyone familiar with Family Court Practice knows that this lie is as bald faced as Scott himself.

Scott also wrote “Current Florida law already provides for the adjustment of alimony under the proper circumstances.” Were one to fact-check this direct quote from his veto letter, one would obtain a score of zero out of one hundred. Permanent alimony — which Scott favors — really is permanent and ends only with the death of one spouse. It is virtually impossible to modify permanent alimony no matter if you have Alzheimer’s disease or your income drops substantially or to zero. Pay or Gov. Scott will send a man (but never a woman) to debtor’s prison.

Gov. Scott is so desperate to get the “woman’s vote” that he is willing to wage a war on men and prey on men who already have been preyed upon by an unjust Family Court System.

I hope that his wife divorces him and takes him for every penny he’s got.

Perhaps then, and only then, will he understand that Family Law — which he so fervently embraces — really is a war On men.

Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the FamilyLet's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate...
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, August 22, 2015

Family Court, make it a Federal Casehttps://world4justice.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/family-court-make-it-a-federal-case/
Posted by Children's Rights on Friday, August 14, 2015

Sunday

Father Contacts The White House From Brevard County, Florida

Posted by Boycottfamilylaw : Restore Children's Rights Worldwide on Friday, August 14, 2015

Presidential Proclamation after father contacts the White House from Brevard

The Historic Titusville Courthouse halls of justice or injustice?
The Objective

Wednesday

Presidential Proclamation -- Law Day

Post by Children's Rights.

Society, family courts must empower, not limit, fathers | Letters To The Editor | Bradenton Herald »Hats off to the Bradenton Herald for stepping up to the plate for Dad's.

Presidential Proclamation -- Law Day, 2013

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As a Nation, we are bound together not by the colors of our skin, the tenets of our faith, or the origins of our names. What unites us as Americans is our allegiance to an idea articulated more than two centuries ago: that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In the years since that declaration, we not only forged a Republic of, by, and for the people; we also set ourselves to the task of perfecting it, and bridging the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.

This Law Day, we look back on our long journey toward equality for all. We reflect on the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago to mend a Nation half-slave and half-free under the unifying promise of liberty. We remember when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stood in Lincoln's shadow a century later and gave voice to a dream, sounding the call for an America that truly lives out the meaning of its founding creed. We honor the courageous men and women who fought to bring those ageless ideals of freedom and fairness into the rule of law -- from the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Even now, that work is not yet finished. Opportunity remains painfully unequal for too many among us; justice too often goes undone. Law Day is a chance to reaffirm the critical role our courts have always played in addressing those wrongs and aligning our Nation with its first principles. Let us mark this occasion by celebrating that history, upholding the right to due process, and honoring all who have sustained our proud legal tradition.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all Americans to acknowledge the importance of our Nation's legal and judicial systems with appropriate ceremonies and activities, and to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

~BARACK OBAMA

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.

2/20

Posted by Children's Rights on Friday, August 14, 2015

Thursday

The "distance between parental residences" exception...

...will encourage mothers to move away and, in other cases, is utterly subject to the discretion of the Judge.

Florida Bill Establishes Presumption of Equally-Shared Parenting

April 21st, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

But allow me to say “Oops!” Oh, I got the alimony bill right, but a couple of readers have pointed out something to me. The bill that passed also would establish a presumption of equal parenting in the Sunshine State! Those provisions are buried in half a page of the 28-page bill. Here’s how they read:

Equal time-sharing of a minor child by both parents is presumed to be in the best interests of the child unless the court finds that:

a. The safety, well-being and physical and mental and emotional health of the child would be endangered by equal time-sharing, that visitation would be presumed detrimental consistent with s. 39.0139 (3), or that supervised visitation is appropriate, if any is appropriate;

b. Clear and convincing evidence of extenuating circumstances justify a departure from equal time-sharing and the court makes written findings justifying the departure from equal time-sharing;

The Myth of Mental Health Diagnosis » Stop Using Psychology To Destroy Families And Children...Prove It!

c. A parent is incarcerated;

d. The distance between parental residences makes equal time-sharing impracticable;

e. A parent does not request at least 50% time-sharing; or

f. There is evidence of domestic violence.

The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic »The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic, by Tom Lemons of http://www.falsedvireports.com/

That’s the sum of the equal parenting part of House Bill 231 that overwhelmingly passed.

Now, each of those exceptions can block a father’s bid for equal time, but only the last one seems to have much utility in that regard. For example, (a) requires all items – endangerment to the safety, well-being, physical, mental and emotional health – to be found by the court in order to deny equal parenting time. That’s a very high bar to clear, to say the least.

The second exception is vague (what are “extenuating circumstances”?) in the extreme, plus it requires them to be established by clear and convincing evidence, plus it requires the judge to make written findings, something judges don’t usually like to do.

Incarceration is pretty cut and dried, although what will happen if the incarcerated parent is just about to get out of prison when the order is signed isn’t clear.

The distance between parental residences exception will encourage mothers to move away and, in other cases, is utterly subject to the discretion of the judge. I would argue that House Bill 231 clearly enunciates a legislative preference for equal parenting, so judges should err on the side of that arrangement. So if parents live too far apart to make, say, weekly handoffs practicable, maybe two-week residences with each parent would make more sense. If the parents are too far apart for one of them to get the child to school every day, then equal parenting, or close to it, can be achieved by having the child with one parent during all holidays and the summer. However it’s worked out in individual cases, judges should be aware of the strong legislative language supporting equal parenting and act to get as close to that as possible.

Of course the real weasel words are found in (f), the exception for domestic violence. Sadly, on its face, that exception allows a judge to order less than equal time-sharing if there is any evidence of domestic violence. The evidence doesn’t have to be good or even believable. It can be clearly rebutted. It can be presented for the sole reason of invoking exception (f). It can be the unsupported claim of one parent alone. As the bill is written, any of those types of “evidence” could be interpreted by a judge as invalidating a child’s right to equal time with each parent.

Needless to say, (f) gives me pause. But if I were a lawyer trying to get equal time for my client, and the other party claimed the domestic violence exception, I would argue that the legislature never intended to be as cavalier about that exception as I indicated in my previous paragraph. Again I’d point out that the obvious purpose of the bill is the presumption of equal parenting and to rebut that you have to produce real evidence of real violence. I’d point to the next section of the law that requires that the parent have been convicted of a first degree (or higher) misdemeanor domestic violence for a court to order non-shared parenting. It only makes sense to read the new section and the one following it together. Otherwise a judge would be effectively invalidating the second section of the law.

Will this bill pass the state Senate? We’ll see. But if it does, it’ll be a great leap forward for fathers’ rights to their children and children’s rights to their fathers.

Post by First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform.

Source Reference

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.

An important distinction worthy of mention is that most of the members of the children’s and fathers' rights movement had little prior interest in the law or politics. However, as they felt that their goal of equal shared parenting was being frustrated by the family courts, many took an interest in family law, including but not limited to child custody and child support.
The movement includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law. Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement.

Objections to the characterizations of the movement as a social movement are related to the belief that discrimination against fathers moves beyond the social sciences and originates in government intervention into family life. The movement has received international press coverage as a result of high profile activism of their members, has become increasingly vocal, visible and organized, and has played a powerful role in family law debates.

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ~ "The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an early 20th century United States Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.

In Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) ~ "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.... It is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter."Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) ~ "The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made."Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000),^[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.

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.

¿Que es la Custodia Compartida?

viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA - . more »

SHARE YOUR STORY

We always encourage all parents and extended family to share experiences of Family Court horrors, or Parental Alienation and its impact on you, your children and family. That way the ripple effect of the information and experiences shared will create positive change for other people who are affected or who may be affected in the future.

Comment anonymously, call yourself whatever you want. Email addresses are strictly confidential, and providing one is optional (but will allow you to be notified of others’ responses and to dialogue immediately if you wish). This blog was viewed over a half a million times. For the public to be aware of procedural abuses, it has to hear about them. The blog author’s own story is here. Civility is the only constraint upon your speech.

The Communications Decency Act exempts this blog’s author from any liability for what you say.