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
Wednesday
Monday
Shared Parenting Supporters Say "Changes Are Long Overdue".
The State House hearing room seemed an unlikely place for grown men to bare their souls.
Ned Holstein of the National Parents Organization testified for change. |
But as father after father took a seat in a committee room, urging lawmakers to support proposed legislation to revamp Massachusetts’ child-custody statute, they laid out the particulars of their divorces and personal lives in blunt detail.
Creemos que debemos unirnos para defender a nuestras familias.
Somos una coalición de ciudadanos de todos los ámbitos de la vida muy preocupados por la seguridad y el bienestar de nuestros niños y familias. Creemos que debemos unirnos para defender a nuestras familias ya que hay gran poder en la unidad: “Uno solo puede ser vencido, pero dos podrán resistir. Y además, la cuerda de tres hilos no se rompe fácilmente” (Eclesiastés 4:12).Somos un ejército de padres defendiendo a nuestros hijos. |
Derechos de los Hombres
Feminismo y el Hombre Desechable
Saturday
No definition of transformative use is set out in the Copyright Act
Posted on 08/02/2015
(a) Copying up to 25 words is fair use.
(b) Copying less than 10 percent is fair use.
(c) Copying 25 words or 10% is fair use.
(d) Copying only a small amount is fair use.
(e) If you don’t make money on it, it’s fair use.
(f) It’s fair use if it’s for an educational purpose.
(g) Non-profit organizations can’t be sued for copyright infringement.
(h) It’s fair use if there’s no copyright notice on it.
(i) If the author is dead, you can copy anything he wrote.
(j) As long as you give credit to the author, it’s fair use.
(k) “Fair use” is a myth. There is no such thing.
If you answered (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (k), then you failed the test. You’re in good company, though; nearly everybody believes at least one of these things is true.
Monday
Family Court is a deadly business
Originally appeared at CatholicCourier.Com (Regional paper for Catholic Diocese of Roches
Lyons man stands up for beliefs
(Publication Date: 09-03-2008)
By Jennifer Burke/Catholic Courier Lyons resident John Murtari has been standing up for what he believes in for years, but those actions recently made him a minor celebrity in his hometown. Murtari is featured in "Support? System Down," a documentary recently produced and directed by actor Angelo Lobo. The film explores what Lobo sees as the flaws in America's child-support system. "Support" premiered in California this past spring, and the recently restored Ohmann Theater in Lyons hosted a special screening of the film Aug. 13. In November 2006 Lobo visited Murtari in prison, where Murtari was serving a six-month sentence for failure to pay child support. Murtari claims he fell behind in his child-support payments because the payment amounts were calculated based on an income level he no longer had. What little extra money Murtari did have was usually spent traveling across the country to visit his son Domenic, he said. "What am I supposed to do? I want to see my son," Murtari, who belongs to St. Michael Parish in Lyons, told the Catholic Courier. "He wasn't (physically or financially) hurting for anything, but he wanted Daddy." Murtari refused food or water while imprisoned and instead received his nourishment through a feeding tube inserted through his nose. He did so not to harm himself, but to protest what he called an unjust family-court system that he felt had wrongly taken away his son and sent him to prison, all without a jury trial. Murtari also has been arrested several times for writing on the ground in chalk "I love you, Dom" and "Senator Clinton, help us" outside the Federal Building in Syracuse in an attempt to draw Sen. Hillary Clinton's attention to his proposed Family Rights Act. "The idea is to get Congress to pass a Family Rights Act. Each state has different family law, and it's almost amazing to think that your relationship with your children could be governed differently in Alabama than here in New York," Murtari said. Murtari, founder of the nonprofit organization A Kids Right, has a draft of the proposed act on the organization's Web site, www.AKidsRight.org. The organization's members believe all parents should be presumed fit and equal parents unless the government can prove through a jury trial that they are a demonstrated threat to their children, and have demonstrated that with harmful intent. Only then should the government interfere with a parent's right to raise his or her child, according to the organization and the proposed legislation. "John Murtari is a voice for the many non-custodial parents who wanted to share their children equally. People will see why he not only went on a hunger strike for change, but also continues to peacefully protest for the rights of children to have both parents," Lobo said in a statement. Murtari, who hadn't seen the movie before the Aug. 13 screening, said he was pleased with the way Lobo told his story and the way the film educated people unfamiliar with the child-support and family-court systems. "It's always weird seeing yourself (on film)," Murtari said. "What really got me was the people from town who were there and said, 'Wow, I never knew (about the system)." Murtari said he himself had never known much about the child-support and family-court systems before his divorce, even though he'd always considered himself a politically aware man. When his ex-wife decided to move across the country with their 5-year-old son, however, he said the "gut-wrenching" experience inspired him to learn more about the system and how he might change it. He drew inspiration from the Gospels and from reading about the lives of St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Inspired by what these men were able to do through simple faith and nonviolent action, Murtari decided to follow their examples. "Nonviolent action doesn't mean writing letters. It's voluntary, loving self-sacrifice to show how deeply you believe in your cause," Murtari said. His nonviolent actions have landed him in jail more than once, but Murtari said he's seen some fruits from his labor. Once-hostile law-enforcement officers and court officials have begun treating him with respect, and he's full of hope that his actions can make a difference for families throughout the nation. "I could have easily descended into that bitterness and helplessness. Once I started taking these actions I felt better," Murtari said. "With faith you can lose that bitterness. When you're using that faith and sacrificing to make things better for others, you're going to feel better." EDITOR'S NOTE: To learn more about "Support? System Down," visit the film's Web site at www.SupportTheMovie.com. |
The 'Family Court in Focus' event is tomorrow night! - Note: You don't need to bring your tickets, just yourselves and support to bring these issues back on the public and political agenda. We look forward to seeing you there.
The Family Court Is Badly Broken, And So Are The Parents -- At a recent meeting in a converted warehouse in inner-Sydney 30 or so people -- both men and women -- told stories of devastation and heartbreaking loss. In…HUFFINGTONPOST.COM.AU
Children Lost in Divorce
The gift of parenting children is the single greatest blessing and experience an individual can enjoy in life. Therefore to me, parenting rights are not a “special rights” concern; they are a “human rights” concern.
So, I want to ask where you stand on an important political issue: Family Law Reform.As you may or may not be aware, our current system of Family Law has devolved into one in which a whole host of Family Court Industry players are profiteering from the minimization or elimination of parenting time and rights for non-custodial parents.
Many custodial parents, lawyers, parenting plan evaluators, supervised parenting services, States, friends of the Court social workers, many Courts, and others; are making money by using children as an excuse to exploit non-custodial parents, causing irreparable harm to both children and their parents in the process.
I, and a rapidly growing base of many others, would like this to stop. More specifically, we are asking for five primary reforms to Family Law:
The presumption of 50/50 custody and parenting rights during and after divorce. We are NOT asking for a REQUIREMENT of 50/50, because we still want parents to be able to decide for themselves what works best for them. However, in the event that case goes to trial, instead of having the NCP being forced to rise to a high standard to show why they should have time with their children, I believe it’s far healthier (for both parents and children) for the parent contesting this time to be required to rise to a high standard to show why the NCP should NOT have equal time with their children. And while this may dramatically hit the financial accounts of those who are using children for profit by creating or aggravating conditions of conflict, this reform will affect far healthier outcomes for families.
I would like reforms to child support calculations. More specifically, an elimination of financial incentives for minimizing or eliminating a non-custodial parent’s time with their little ones. As it sits now, there are basically two pieces to the child support calculation: (1) An actual physical needs worksheet, and (2) A tax-free income redistribution; with the Court establishing the higher of the two as the child support order. I recognize that custodial parents may need some time to adjust after divorce, and I have no problems with alimony/maintenance. However, I would like the alimony portion of child support to be eliminated. If a CP wants to better their lifestyle, they can put the work into bettering themselves just like NCP’S are often admonished to do. Children are NOT tax-free income producing assets, and NCP’s are NOT indentured servants.
Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458 "Incentive Payments To States": I have no problem, in theory, with states being rewarded for child support enforcement. However, I have a big problem with States profiting from it, and a REALLY big problem with the lack of resources available to NCP’s for visitation enforcement. For little or no cost, a CP can have the state pursue civil or criminal remedies for delinquent child support. However, an NCP in reality, must hire an attorney if his or her visitation orders are being ignored, and often, these orders are not enforced with anywhere near the same severity by the Court as they are with child support orders. And I’m confident this is happening in large part, due to the financial interests of those parties noted in paragraph four. Therefore, if there is going to be Federal incentives for the enforcement of Family Court orders, I want equal weighting and importance put the enforcement of visitation orders. Honestly, the message that money is more important than a parent’s relationship and the emotional well-being of children is remarkably disgusting. I simply can’t tolerate that kind of worldview.
VAWA reform. I agree that victims of abuse and violence need the ability to feel safe in swiftly seeking the protection of the Justice system. However, fraudulent allegations of abuse made during Family Court are getting out of control. This is a gender-neutral problem, and it seems it now boils down to which party can launch this nuclear attack first. There are no remedies available to the victims of fraudulent allegations – none, and the damage these allegations cause to both children and parents is catastrophic.
The American Bar Association loves to fall back on VAWA as its reasoning for opposing any kind of Family Law reform. However, I can’t help but wonder how much money attorneys and investigators are making from a law that allows someone to be accused of such a serious crime and presumed guilty of it with no credible evidence what-so-ever. Something needs to be done about this, right now.
In short, much of the current political and judicial rationalizing for the current structure of Family Law centers on the concept of what’s “in the best interests of the children”. However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that children are simply being used as a seemingly noble excuse to mask a greedier underlying motive that is causing significant and irreparable harm to parents and children alike.
I understand you can expect to receive significant resistance to my ideas for reform because those parties noted earlier have a great deal to lose when they take place.
However, I’m not concerned about them. I’m concerned about the health and well-being children and parents, and your position on this matter will affect my voting behavior going forward.
Therefore, I will be grateful if you will tell me, in plain and simple words, where you stand on Family Law Reform.
Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Let's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate :2015))4 Family Justice Reform!
— at Let us be excellent to each other in 2015.So, I want to ask where you stand on an important political issue: Family Law Reform.As you may or may not be aware, our current system of Family Law has devolved into one in which a whole host of Family Court Industry players are profiteering from the minimization or elimination of parenting time and rights for non-custodial parents.
Many custodial parents, lawyers, parenting plan evaluators, supervised parenting services, States, friends of the Court social workers, many Courts, and others; are making money by using children as an excuse to exploit non-custodial parents, causing irreparable harm to both children and their parents in the process.
I, and a rapidly growing base of many others, would like this to stop. More specifically, we are asking for five primary reforms to Family Law:
The presumption of 50/50 custody and parenting rights during and after divorce. We are NOT asking for a REQUIREMENT of 50/50, because we still want parents to be able to decide for themselves what works best for them. However, in the event that case goes to trial, instead of having the NCP being forced to rise to a high standard to show why they should have time with their children, I believe it’s far healthier (for both parents and children) for the parent contesting this time to be required to rise to a high standard to show why the NCP should NOT have equal time with their children. And while this may dramatically hit the financial accounts of those who are using children for profit by creating or aggravating conditions of conflict, this reform will affect far healthier outcomes for families.
I would like reforms to child support calculations. More specifically, an elimination of financial incentives for minimizing or eliminating a non-custodial parent’s time with their little ones. As it sits now, there are basically two pieces to the child support calculation: (1) An actual physical needs worksheet, and (2) A tax-free income redistribution; with the Court establishing the higher of the two as the child support order. I recognize that custodial parents may need some time to adjust after divorce, and I have no problems with alimony/maintenance. However, I would like the alimony portion of child support to be eliminated. If a CP wants to better their lifestyle, they can put the work into bettering themselves just like NCP’S are often admonished to do. Children are NOT tax-free income producing assets, and NCP’s are NOT indentured servants.
Reforms to child support enforcement: If one wants to accomplish a goal, it helps establish good or helpful conditions to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the Family Court has become accustomed to pathological and often draconian measures for enforcement in which the civil rights of NCP’s are systematically ignored or eliminated through administrative court procedures. If a person loses their job, or becomes ill or disabled, it makes no sense what so ever, to take away their driver’s license, vocational license, destroy their credit, throw them in jail, or force them into homelessness. How does this help to ensure the support gets caught-up? It doesn’t. It simply makes the problem worse and sets the non-custodial parent up for future, life-destroying failures. Truthfully, current regimes for enforcement that treat "deadbroke" parents as common criminals are completely inappropriate.
Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458 "Incentive Payments To States": I have no problem, in theory, with states being rewarded for child support enforcement. However, I have a big problem with States profiting from it, and a REALLY big problem with the lack of resources available to NCP’s for visitation enforcement. For little or no cost, a CP can have the state pursue civil or criminal remedies for delinquent child support. However, an NCP in reality, must hire an attorney if his or her visitation orders are being ignored, and often, these orders are not enforced with anywhere near the same severity by the Court as they are with child support orders. And I’m confident this is happening in large part, due to the financial interests of those parties noted in paragraph four. Therefore, if there is going to be Federal incentives for the enforcement of Family Court orders, I want equal weighting and importance put the enforcement of visitation orders. Honestly, the message that money is more important than a parent’s relationship and the emotional well-being of children is remarkably disgusting. I simply can’t tolerate that kind of worldview.
VAWA reform. I agree that victims of abuse and violence need the ability to feel safe in swiftly seeking the protection of the Justice system. However, fraudulent allegations of abuse made during Family Court are getting out of control. This is a gender-neutral problem, and it seems it now boils down to which party can launch this nuclear attack first. There are no remedies available to the victims of fraudulent allegations – none, and the damage these allegations cause to both children and parents is catastrophic.
The American Bar Association loves to fall back on VAWA as its reasoning for opposing any kind of Family Law reform. However, I can’t help but wonder how much money attorneys and investigators are making from a law that allows someone to be accused of such a serious crime and presumed guilty of it with no credible evidence what-so-ever. Something needs to be done about this, right now.
In short, much of the current political and judicial rationalizing for the current structure of Family Law centers on the concept of what’s “in the best interests of the children”. However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that children are simply being used as a seemingly noble excuse to mask a greedier underlying motive that is causing significant and irreparable harm to parents and children alike.
I understand you can expect to receive significant resistance to my ideas for reform because those parties noted earlier have a great deal to lose when they take place.
However, I’m not concerned about them. I’m concerned about the health and well-being children and parents, and your position on this matter will affect my voting behavior going forward.
Therefore, I will be grateful if you will tell me, in plain and simple words, where you stand on Family Law Reform.
Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Let's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate :2015))4 Family Justice Reform!
Saturday
Dad is expected to be more involved.
NCFM Advisor Gordon Finley, Ph.D. blasts VAWA for causing the deaths of men | National Coalition For Men (NCFM)
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.
Family Court Litigation Can Be Dangerous To Your Health! ~~ LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME-PTSD
Post by Pro-se Winners.
Legal abuse
Interest
Legal abuse refers to abuses associated with both civil and criminal legal action. Abuse can originate from nearly any part of the legal system, including frivolous and vexatious litigants, abuses by law enforcement,incompetent, careless or corrupt attorneys and misconduct from the judiciary itself.
Legal abuse is responsible not only for injustice, but also harm to physical, psychological and societal health.*
Types~
Abuses can originate from virtually every part of the legal system. Litigants, attorneys, law enforcement andjudiciary can abuse the system, sometimes accidentally but more often intentionally. Legal abuse can also besystemic, such as when the principles, processes, and consequences of law itself encourage and enable individuals to legally harm others.
Abusive litigants~
Main articles: Vexatious litigation, Frivolous litigation, Strategic lawsuit against public participation and Frameup
Abusive litigants in civil cases are most often classified as vexatious litigation, frivolous litigation, or both. Avexatious litigant seeks to harass or subdue an adversary. A frivolous litigant starts or carries on actions that have little or no merit and are very unlikely to be won. Litigants of this sort are often unable to find representationwilling to accommodate them and thus must represent themselves in propria persona.
There can often be considerable overlap between these two types of abuse. One case in point is the strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by fear, intimidation and burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such actions are self-evidently vexatious, but are typically frivolous as well in that the plaintiff does not expect, or even intend, to win.
Litigants can abuse the system in criminal ways as well. Some of the forms of criminal legal system abuse arejury tampering, the practice of directing enticements or threats to jurors in order to influence their deliberations, and falsification of evidence, which refers to any of a variety of ways evidence is improperly manipulated. One particular case of falsifying evidence is the frameup, a chiefly American term for the manufacture or manipulation of evidence for the purpose of indicating the guilt of an innocent party.
Law enforcement abuse~
Main article: Police misconduct
There are a plethora of ways that police and law enforcement can undermine the rights of citizens. Sometimes such abuses are unintentional, brought about by circumstance, imperfect understanding of some subtlety of law, or other kinds of good-faith mistakes. In other cases rights are abused deliberately, due to prejudice, self-interest, vigilantism, impaired value judgment, conflicts of interest or corruption. Such police misconduct can take many forms, among them false arrest, harassment, police brutality, falsification of evidence, coercion and in rare cases, torture and false imprisonment.
Abusive advocates~
Main article: Attorney misconduct
Lawyers, paralegals and other professionals involved in legal advocacy can abuse the system in a number of ways. In some cases, representation may well-intended but nonetheless incompetent. In others, lawyers engage in misconduct in an effort to gain unfair advantage for their clients or in pursuit of some self-interest.
Abusive judiciary~
Main article: Judicial misconduct
Abuse from the bench can arise from various causes, including incompetence, conflicts of interest, bias or prejudice, judicial misconduct and corruption.
Consequences of abuse~
Although the primary consequence of unaddressed legal-system abuse for victims is injustice, abuses of the legal system inflict harm in many other ways. Civil litigation and criminal defense of the innocent imposepsychological stress, often severe, upon the parties involved. Often such stress will affect physical health as well. When the system is abused and justice is denied as a result, stress and its effects can be exacerbated enormously. Karin P. Huffer, M.S., M.F.T. hypothesized the condition Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) as a form ofpost traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by ethical violation, legal abuse, betrayal, abuse of power, abuse of authority, lack of accountability and fraud.
Chronic and high-profile legal abuse have societal effects as well, including distrust of the law, law enforcement and the legal system, rationalization of small crimes by ordinarily honest citizens, and psychological stress.
See also~
- Abuse of process
- Attorney misconduct
- Bullying in the legal profession
- Abuse of discretion
- Copyfraud
- Entrapment
- False accusations
- False arrest
- Gaming the system
- Ineffective assistance of counsel
- Jurisdictional arbitrage
- Kangaroo court
- Legal malpractice
- Legal opportunism
- Legal technicality
- Letter and spirit of the law
- Loophole
- Malicious prosecution
- Miscarriage of justice
- Professional responsibility
- Prosecutorial misconduct
- Recklessness (law)
- Sharp practice
- Show trial
- Strategic lawsuit against public participation
- Summary judgment
- Vexatious litigation
References~
- ^ Chance, Randal P. (2004). RAPED by the STATE: Fractured Justice - Legal Abuse. AuthorHouse.ISBN 978-1-4140-5005-8.
- ^ Colombo, R. (2010). Fight Back Legal Abuse: How to Protect Yourself From Your Own Attorney. Morgan James Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60037-709-9.
- ^ Huffer, Karin (June 1995). Legal Abuse Syndrome. Karin Huffer. ISBN 0-9641786-0-5.
- ^ Huffer, Karin (1995). Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome. Karin Huffer. ISBN 978-0-9641786-0-1.
Check out this website out before you go before the judge in court!
The old adage is...
"He who represents himself has a fool for a client." The reality has become..."He who is represented is usually taken for a fool."
Pro Se, Sui Juris, In Propia Persona and Pro Per Information
Pro Se is defined as someone that is representing themselves
in court or other legal proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Take Action Now!
Children's Rights Florida
Florida Family Law Reform
Family Law Community
Search This Blog
American Coalition for Fathers and Children
Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.
Abuse
(7)
Abuse of power
(1)
Abuse of process
(5)
Admission to practice law
(3)
Adversarial system
(79)
Advocacy group
(3)
African American
(1)
Alienator
(1)
Alimony
(7)
All Pro Dad
(1)
All rights reserved
(1)
Allegation
(2)
Alliance for Justice
(2)
American Civil Liberties Union
(3)
American Psychological Association
(1)
Americans
(2)
Anecdotal evidence
(2)
Anti-discrimination law
(1)
Arrest
(1)
Bar association
(1)
Best interests
(41)
Bill (law)
(1)
British Psychological Society
(1)
Broward County
(1)
Broward County Public Schools
(2)
Brown University
(1)
Catholic Church
(1)
Center for Public Integrity
(2)
Chief judge
(25)
Child Abuse
(48)
Child custody
(76)
Child development
(6)
Child neglect
(2)
Child protection
(15)
Child Protective Services
(18)
Child Support
(61)
Children
(3)
Children's Rights
(83)
Christine Lagarde
(1)
Christmas
(3)
Circuit court
(3)
Civil and political rights
(14)
Civil law (common law)
(1)
Civil liberties
(9)
Civil Rights
(143)
Civil rights movement
(1)
Class action
(1)
Communist Party of Cuba
(1)
Confidentiality
(1)
Constitutional law
(1)
Constitutional right
(5)
Contact (law)
(10)
Contempt of court
(2)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(1)
Coparenting
(27)
Copyright
(1)
Copyright infringement
(1)
Corruption
(1)
Court Enabled PAS
(90)
Court order
(2)
Cuba
(1)
Cuban Missile Crisis
(1)
Cuban Revolution
(1)
Custodial Parent
(1)
Declaratory judgment
(3)
Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact
(109)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(2)
Divorce
(121)
Divorce Corp
(3)
Divorce Court
(1)
Documentary
(22)
Domestic Violence
(51)
Dr. Stephen Baskerville
(5)
Dred Scott v. Sandford
(1)
DSM-5
(1)
DSM-IV Codes
(1)
Due Process
(44)
Due Process Clause
(1)
Dwyane Wade
(1)
Easter
(1)
Equal-time rule
(2)
Ethics
(1)
Events
(9)
Exposé (group)
(1)
Facebook
(19)
Fair use
(1)
False accusation
(4)
False Accusations
(56)
Family
(1)
Family (biology)
(2)
Family Court
(192)
Family Law
(107)
Family Law Reform
(115)
Family Rights
(86)
Family therapy
(10)
Father
(12)
Father figure
(2)
Father's Day
(1)
Father's Rights
(12)
Fatherhood
(105)
Fatherlessness Epidemic
(4)
Fathers 4 Justice
(3)
Fathers' rights movement
(44)
Fidel Castro
(1)
Florida
(209)
Florida Attorney General
(6)
Florida Circuit Courts
(18)
florida lawyers
(29)
Florida Legislature
(6)
Florida Senate
(10)
Foster care
(1)
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(1)
Fraud
(1)
Free Speech
(1)
Freedom of speech
(1)
Frivolous litigation
(1)
Fundamental rights
(12)
Gender equality
(1)
Government Accountability Project
(2)
Government interest
(2)
Grandparent
(3)
Havana
(1)
Healthy Children
(14)
Human Rights
(117)
Human rights commission
(1)
I Love My Daughter
(55)
I Love My Son
(8)
Injunction
(1)
Innocence Project
(1)
Investigative journalism
(1)
Jason Patric
(2)
JavaScript
(1)
Joint custody
(8)
Joint custody (United States)
(16)
Judge
(4)
Judge Judy
(7)
Judge Manno-Schurr
(53)
Judicial Accountability
(100)
Judicial Immunity
(6)
Judicial misconduct
(8)
Judicial Reform
(3)
Judicial Watch
(2)
Judiciary
(3)
Jury trial
(1)
Kids for cash scandal
(1)
Law
(1)
Lawsuit
(8)
Lawyer
(8)
Legal Abuse
(147)
Liar Joel Greenberg
(15)
Linda Gottlieb
(1)
Litigant in person
(1)
Little Havana
(1)
Marriage
(6)
Matt O'Connor
(1)
Men's rights movement
(1)
Mental disorder
(1)
Mental health
(2)
Meyer v. Nebraska
(1)
Miami
(43)
Miami-Dade County
(8)
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
(1)
Miscarriage of justice
(40)
Mother
(4)
Motion of no confidence
(1)
Movie
(4)
Music
(8)
Nancy Schaefer
(1)
National Fatherhood Initiative
(1)
Natural and legal rights
(1)
News
(86)
Nixa Maria Rose
(15)
Non-governmental organization
(1)
Noncustodial parent
(4)
Organizations
(56)
Palm Beach County
(1)
Parent
(35)
Parental Alienation
(115)
Parental alienation syndrome
(15)
Parental Rights
(36)
Parenting
(12)
Parenting plan
(5)
Parenting time
(7)
Parents' rights movement
(38)
Paternity (law)
(1)
Personal Story
(22)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
(1)
Pope
(1)
Posttraumatic stress disorder
(27)
President of Cuba
(1)
Pro Se
(29)
Pro se legal representation in the United States
(3)
Prosecutor
(1)
Protest
(1)
Psychological manipulation
(1)
Psychologist
(1)
Public accommodations
(1)
Public Awareness
(105)
Raúl Castro
(1)
Re-Post/Re-Blog
(12)
Research
(1)
Restraining order
(4)
Rick Scott
(12)
Second-class citizen
(1)
Self Representation-Pro Se
(31)
Sexism
(1)
Sexual abuse
(2)
Sexual assault
(1)
Shared Parenting
(90)
Single parent
(6)
Skinner v. Oklahoma
(1)
Social Issues
(57)
Social Media
(1)
Spanish
(8)
Stand Up For Zoraya
(46)
State school
(1)
Student
(1)
Supreme Court of Florida
(7)
Supreme Court of the United States
(5)
Testimony
(23)
Thanksgiving
(1)
The Florida Bar
(9)
The Good Men Project
(1)
Trauma
(4)
Troxel v. Granville
(1)
True Story
(21)
Turner v. Rogers
(1)
United States
(24)
United States Congress
(1)
United States Constitution
(1)
United States Department of Justice
(4)
Videos
(50)
Violence Against Women Act
(1)
Whistle-blower
(3)