False allegations of abuse are grounds for losing timesharing.

Court says: Grandparents' false allegations of abuse grounds for losing visitation

CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has ruled a family court judge erred in not terminating an Elkview couple's visitation rights with their grandson after they falsely accused his adoptive father of abusing him.

The Court on April 14 overruled a decision by Kanawha Family Law Judge Mike Kelly denying a petition filed by Warren Lee and Melissa Arnold to terminate visitation by Melissa's former in-laws, Robin and Janet Lyons, with her son, Jon. In an unanimous memorandum opinion, the Court said the Lyons' attempt to not only halt Warren's adoption of Jon, but also coaching Jon to say Warren abused him was more than sufficient grounds for Kelly to grant the Arnold's petition.

"While a best interests analysis will necessarily include an assessment of the bond and the relationship developed between the child and the grandparents," the Court said, "we disagree with the lower court's determination that the relationship between Jon and his grandparents is of a beneficial nature to Jon under the circumstances present here."

"The particular facts of this case, including the vicious nature of the grandparents' actions to forestall Jon's adoption proceedings, as well as their baseless pursuit of abuse allegations against Jon's adoptive father, illustrate a relationship in constant conflict with that of Jon's parents."

Rocky relationship

According to court records, Melissa was married to the Lyons' son, Jonathon, until 2000. Shortly after their divorce, Jonathon died in a car wreck.

Following her marriage to Warren in 2003, she moved with Jon to Spencer. Two years later, Warren, despite the Lyons' objections, successfully petitioned to adopt Jon.

Prior to Melissa's marriage to Warren, records show she agreed to allow Jon to visit the Lyons. The visitation included at least one overnight stay a month, four hours on Thanksgiving Day and nine hours on Christmas Eve and Dec. 26.

Warren's adoption of Jon became a source of friction between the Arnolds and the Lyons to the point where the Lyons accused him of severely bruising Jon with a belt buckle. Records show Warren was arrested on Dec. 20, 2007, and charged by State Police with felony child abuse.

Three days later, Robin Lyons filed a domestic violence protective order on Jon's behalf against Warren. Records show Kelly granted the order on Jan. 2, 2008, which barred Warren from having any contact with Jon for 90 days.

The same day Kanawha Family Law Judge Jane Charnock Smallridge granted a writ of habeas corpus Melissa filed for Jon's return from the Lyons' custody. Due to the protective order, Warren had to live elsewhere until April 2008.

A month later the child abuse charge was dropped at the request of Roane County Prosecutor Mark Sergent. In his motion for dismissal, Sergent said, "Further investigation and disclosures revealed the charge is likely baseless."

Following his return to Melissa's custody, records show Jon was interviewed by Dr. Timothy Saar, a Charleston psychologist. In the report he issued in July 2008, Saar found that not only did Jon's bruise come from vigorously playing air hockey at a friend's house, but the Lyons also "forced him to lie to the police and report that his father had hit him."

"Jon was coached by his grandparents into accusing his father of abusing him," Saar concluded in his report. "The manipulation of this cognitively impaired child by his grandparents should be considered emotional abuse and should call into question the [grandparents'] ability to care for this child."

Reversal

Armed with this information, the Arnolds on Dec. 5, 2008, petitioned Kelly to terminate the Lyons' visitation rights. In the course of two hearings, he took testimony from Ashley Hunt, one of Saar's interns, and Charleston attorney Jeff Woods, who was appointed as Jon's guardian ad litem, that based on their interviews with Jon it would not be a good idea for him to stop visiting the Lyons.

Despite also hearing from Saar during one of the hearings, who stood by his assessment that the Lyons' attempt to alienate Jon from Warren was psychologically damaging, Kelly concurred with Hunt's and Woods' recommendation "it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents" and denied the Arnold's petition on Nov. 13, 2009. Records show an appeal they filed of Kelly's decision to Kanawha Circuit Court was upheld by Judge Tod J. Kaufman on Dec. 16, 2009.

In reversing Kelly's decision, the Court said "while it is undisputed that Jon loves his grandparents and that he enjoys his time with them," their interference with the Arnold's parental decisions has created a toxic relationship between them. Because of that, the Court determined Jon's interests are best served by the Lyons forfeiting future visitation with him.

"The family court found," the Court said, "and the circuit court affirmed, 'as fact that it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents.' We find this assertion to be clearly wrong in light of the testimony of Dr. Saar, and in light of the visitation's interference with the parent-child relationship."

"It is clear that Dr. Saar testified that it was in the best interests of Jon to terminate his visitation with his grandparents and that nothing had happened to change his initial conclusions," the Court added. "We agree with Dr. Saar that such an environment is psychologically damaging to Jon and, therefore, it is in Jon's best interests to terminate grandparent visitation."

In the appeal, the Arnolds were represented by Charleston attorney Dennis R. Bailey, and the Lyons by Charles L. "Dusty" Phalen Jr., also of Charleston, and a former family lawmaster.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 35679

Fathers are as crucial to a child’s well being as a mother

False Allegations Can Terminate Rights

For reasons I’ve never understood, courts have always been loath to punish these exercises in blatant perjury. Well, now they don’t have to. Simple recognition that false allegations that tend to separate a child from a loving and fit parent themselves constitute a form of child abuse will go a long way toward better custody decisions and in the end fewer false allegations of abuse.

Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic ~ #DomesticViolence

The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic

It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.

As a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.

Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.

The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.

I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.

Thank you,

Tom Lemons

Founder, www.falsedvireports.com

Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Friday, August 28, 2015

False Allegations The Gordon Smith Story 

Gordon Smith, False Allegation Victim | False Allegations Summit 

THE REAL STORY: THE INEQUITIES OF THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM. 

Where's the Justice? The Miami Herald Reports False Allegations Of Domestic Violence

Don't Duke it Out With the Rude and Abrasive Judge!!

Suggestions for Interacting With Family Court Judges

• Rule #1: Be Prepared

Judges have little patience with attorneys, and self-represented litigants, who aren't prepared when they enter the courtroom. Many litigants don't seem to know what they are asking the court to do, why they are asking for it, and what the best legal or factual grounds are for the orders requested. Courts everywhere, but particularly here in California with the passage of Family Code section 217 (which requires live testimony hearings upon request) , are overburdened. Judicial resources are not sufficient to meet demand in these budgetary times, and this places a premium on directness and efficiency. Economic limitations also makes judges a lot crankier than if they had more resources to manage their caseload and calendars.

Depending on County size, wealth and population, California Family Law Judges typically have between 20 and 35 or more matters on their morning calendars. In the afternoons they are often holding evidentiary hearings and trials. If they are to move through these calendars by the end of the morning, brevity and efficiency becomes exceedingly important.

Therefore, one of the biggest mistakes that agitates judges is parties or lawyers who aren't prepared and so can't present their cases with clarity. If a lawyer doesn't appear to care overmuch about their client's case, then why should a judge? Lack of preparation, especially for lawyers, is a cardinal sin.

• Rule #2: Be Prepared For This Particular Judge

In jurisdictions with direct calendar assignments, where a judge is assigned to a case for all purposes or for all purposes possibly until the case is reassigned for trial, learn about the particular bench officer(s) who presides over your case. Information allows you to make useful assumptions about a particular judge's attitudes and policies.

As Judges Curtis and Zisman note, the best judicial officers are predictable and consistent in their rulings. "A judge's value to the public as a judge is in direct proportion to the ability of the lawyers who frequent the court to predict how the judge will deal with a particular issue." I find this to be so true in my personal experience. Lawyers who know how judges tend to rule on a given issue can set their client's expectations realistically. Armed with such knowledge, both sides are in a better position to have productive settlement discussions that avoid a "crapshoot" and the associated risks and expense. They don't potentially infuriate bench officers with weak arguments that, it is known, such judges may rarely accept.

Lawyers who are practitioners in any given court usually have good insights into local judge's attitudes. They may also be aware of information about a judge that is not generally available to the public, like their expertise, practice focus, and reputation before they took the bench. Knowing that while a lawyer your judge participated in a case that generated a published appellate decision on a move-away case, for instance, could provide you a wealth of ideas on how to tailor your presentation. Likewise, knowing whether a judge has been reversed is useful for making sensitive presentations.

Pro per litigants should consider observing a judge going through her calendar over the course of one or more days. You will learn tons about their judicial attitude from watching them in open court, and you may witness other parties get scolded or reprimanded for missteps and so avoid the same mistakes. A simple but classic example is the family court litigant who brings a small retinue of family members who are there to provide familial support, some of whom cannot sit still without gasping, shaking their heads violently, or sobbing.

• Rule #3: Notify the Court If the Case Will Be Continued the Day Before

Sometimes one or both attorneys or parties intend to seek a continuance of a hearing, possibly because they want to discuss settlement but often because one or both are not ready to proceed or have late papers to submit.

Judges have very different attitudes towards continuances, particularly where they have already read the materials and then are faced with a continuance request. Lawyers who know that a case will not proceed are well advised to contact the courtroom clerk at least a day in advance to give a head's up - otherwise, they may wind up with a judge who justifiably feels "put out". Some allow self-represented parties to give advance notice of agreed upon continuances, but the other side will need to confirm it. Often messages must be left on the clerk's answering machine, and you may not know that number or whether messages were received or acted upon.

Where both sides have attorneys and a particular judge is known to permit it, counsel should always let the court know one or even two days in advance that the hearing is not expected to proceed that day.

• Rule #4: Look At the Local Court Rules, If Any, and the California Rules of Court

Some counties or individual courts have local rules; many do not. Most judges have their own rules and styles, often never to be found in written form. It never hurts to ask the Court clerk, when the judge is off the bench, whether that courtroom follows any specific preferences, customs, or rules of procedures.

The state-wide source for procedural rules impacting California Family Law (and Juvenile cases) are the California Rules of Court, beginning with Rule 5.100. Rule 5.111 is one of the immediately most important, since it deals with initiating common OSC and Motion requests for custody, support, etc. These rules apply to all family law matters in all California courtrooms.

The Riverside County Local Rules pertaining to Family Law cases can be found here. Start with Title 5. I discuss these in more detail below. The Los Angeles Family Court Rules can be accessed here. Basically you ought to go to the County website where your case is filed and look for the local rules for that are applied.

• Rule #5: Talk to the Judge, Not the Other Party or Lawyer

The time to discuss your case or argue with the other side is before you enter the courtroom. It drives judges nuts when two lawyers, two pro se parties, or any combination of them begin to argue at counsel table as though the judge was not present. Keep your focus on the judge, and generally avoid looking at the other party except for emphasis. Never address the other party directly.

If you bring witnesses or support people in the courtroom, tell them in advance to keep control of themselves. This means no interruptions, no head shaking or head nodding, no gasps, and no agitated movements. It is natural that such people have an emotional investment in the outcome. However, if they act in an uncontrolled fashion, that may affect the court's evaluation of you. I don't have many times I told family members this, only to watch them go utterly vacant and stupid because their emotions get out of hand!

Family Law Lawyers Screened For Empathy

Prominent L.A. Attorney Says Future Lawyers Should Be Screened and Trained for Empathy

Increasingly we are entering an era where future lawyers should be screened and trained for empathy!

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 2, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Baer, an award-winning attorney and mediator in practice since 1991, notes, "Those who tend to be attracted to law school in the first place tend to be logical thinkers (rule oriented) and have low EQ levels. Moreover, the research indicates that the training students receive in law school also causes an 'erosion of empathy.' Furthermore, the more empathic students tend to drop out of law school at a much higher rate. 

Moreover, lawyers with 'higher level of resilience, empathy, initiative and sociability' are more likely to leave law practice than those with lower levels of those traits."

Baer claims this root problem is causing significant problems for society.

"Law schools must begin recognizing the damage that is being caused to interpersonal relationships and our overall society, due to the low EQ levels of those involved in the field of law and make a concerted effort to address this extremely serious problem. Law schools might learn a thing or two from the changes taking place in the education of future physicians," said Baer.

He then showed how a quote written about changes under consideration with regard to the medical field could apply equally well to the legal field with a few minor changes. The quote with his changes in brackets is as follows: It would benefit everyone if "leaders [in the legal field began] exploring ways to infuse more empathy into the [legal] field. That includes re-evaluating the criteria for who should get admitted to [law] school in the first place, and what they should learn while they're there. Their reforms [should] raise questions about what constitutes quality [legal] care, how (and whether) it can be trained, and how much change is even possible in the American [legal] system today."

To speak with Mark Baer,

Please contact: Aurora DeRose (310) 396-6090 – Aurora411@TimeWire.net.

Prominent L.A. Attorney Says Future Lawyers Should Be Screened and Trained for... -- LOS ANGELES, Sept. 2, 2015 /PRNewswire/ --

Language and the Law - Simple Doesn't Mean Stupid

Excerpt from article:

Researching Reform: ~




Whether you take the view that legal jargon is an integral part of the culture inside the justice system, or offers an efficient labelling tool for the speedy processing of information, law is no longer a selective world but a communal one; and everyone wants to speak the language.

Blame the internet and a growing social conscience online, but simplifying language in law has been one of the defining phenomena for the UK justice system in the twenty-first century. For Family Courts at least, coming into contact with parents, children and extended family members who are not trained to deal in family law jargon, pressure to change the way we use language has contributed to wide-scale reform. The most notable to date, Mr Justice Ryder's recommendations for modernising the family justice system, included looking at the way terms and phrases were being used and seeing how we could break those down and make them easier to understand. Despite this, much of the language still used in court and by lawyers and other professionals inside the justice system remains unnecessarily complex.

Litigants in Person (LIP) continue to struggle with terminology inside the courts, with judges reportingdelays inside their courtrooms as a result, and more time spent explaining phrases and processes. Sadly, the current guidelines seem to have done very little to address this problem, perhaps in large part due to the fact that legal jargon exists before and after the court process, with very little help for LIPs during those in-between moments when they are effectively without support.

Related Articles

• Book review – Children Act Private Law Proceedings: A Handbook by Judge John Mitchell >
• Researching Reform: Will the new government be the final nail in the coffin for child welfare? >
• A day in the life of ... Natasha Phillips (Legal Researcher) >

Parental rights include any legal obligations that go with being a parent...

...such as the right to custody or visitation, the right and obligation to provide financial support, and the obligation to provide the child with proper care and supervision.

Erasing Dad we need your help
Erasing Dad part 2 will be an international documentary exposing the corruption of the family court system the world over and the dangers of parental alienation (when a child is prevented from loving or seeing his or her mom or dad after a divorce). We need volunteers who can help with fundraising, social media, research, translations, setting up projections of the film and press. Please contact us at info@erasingdad.org
Posted by Borrando a Papá on Wednesday, August 26, 2015

New law declares parental rights ‘fundamental’ - RVANews

Quote

Reforming Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families – from both financial and emotional perspectives.

Posted: Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:30 pm

Christian Paasch
As the month of August, which was declared Child Support Enforcement Month by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, winds down, I encourage the citizens of Virginia to honor Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s recent proclamation well beyond the close of this month by supporting initiatives that work in children’s best interests after divorce or separation. 

Gov. McAuliffe’s charge to ensure “that the children of Virginia have the financial security and family support that they need to grow and succeed” supports the work of Virginia’s Child Support Guidelines Review Panel, and I am honored to be have been appointed to this panel.As our state rethinks these guidelines, we should seriously consider an important first step that honors both McAuliffe’s recent charge and President Reagan’s original declaration, which reads that we “must work even harder to ensure that all American children are provided the financial support they deserve.”This simple, first step is to embrace shared parenting — where children spend as much time as possible with each parent — following divorce or separation. Making this change in Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families — from both financial and emotional perspectives.

*** 

Starting July 1st, parents in Virginia will have "a fundamental right" to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care” of their children.

Gov. Bob McDonnell signed two identical bills on the issue: House Bill 1642, sponsored by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-Williamsburg); and Senate Bill 908, sponsored by Sen. Bryce Reeve (R-Fredericksburg). The bills formally declare parental rights as fundamental, meaning they will have the highest level of legal protection.

“The bill is pre-emptive and will not change any laws in Virginia,” Pogge said in an email. “It will, however, prevent parental rights from being eroded through potential court actions. I am very happy that it was passed and signed. It was important to a lot of people.”

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent Virginia courts from ruling parental rights as “ordinary” rights.

“Fundamental” means these rights cannot be taken away unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. When rights are “ordinary,” the state has more leeway in overriding parents’ decisions.

WHAT PRINCIPLES GUIDE OUR COUNTRY?

 "For any society to grow there has to be a belief system that will advance that society." 

Welcome to new and old members alike! Our organization's focus is on REFORMING CURRENT ALIMONY LAWS IN FLORIDA with an eye on future family law issues. What are our beliefs? Most of us would agree with the principles of the 10 commandments: Don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't be dishonest, etc.  We also agree that we should reward good behavior; however, we often not only do not reward it, but offer no consequences for bad behavior.  This is at the heart of what is wrong with alimony law in the state of Florida. One of the key elements that elevates a society is diversified financial growth.  With more products and services comes more income, which buys more houses, pays for products, food, transportation, medical/dental care, etc.  Almost all the money earned keeps our society moving forward. When we penalize citizens for the sole reason that they are financially successful, it sends the wrong message to our society.  That's exactly what Florida's alimony laws do.  It's called THE ABILITY TO PAY, where an alimony judgement penalizes the person who has more money and, conversely, rewards the spouse who has chosen not to work.  This creates a "need" for the nonworking party which all too often never goes away.  How did this reversal of principles happen? Fighting for the "underdog" has become quite profitable. Many family law attorneys see the income opportunities when a family faces divorce, involving a plethora of expenses that must be paid by the spouse earning the income.  There is no incentive to limit litigation, so many divorces are extremely profitable for family law attorneys, who even take classes in how to penetrate the income producer's finances. It's all about the money.

Certain Truths Are Self-Evident

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:

• It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law.  It is no mere statement of altruism.^1.
• Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.^2.
• Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.^3.
• The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.^4.
• The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation.  Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.^5.
• The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.^6.
• Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty.  This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.^7.
• A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures.  This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.^8.
• Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.^9.
• Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.^10.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

Equal Rights For BOTH Parents!

Buy a shirt and fund the attorney we just found in Florida to argue 

Declaratory Judgment and destroy the unconstitutional practices in family courts

The money raised in this booster will go towards helping each state file a declaratory judgment to stop the unconstitutional practices in the family courts. The first portion of this month's campaign will be designated for the filing fees in Sarasota, Florida. If there are overages the extra will go into the nonprofit "Keeping Families Intact." Wear one of these shirts proudly knowing that you are part of the solution!

No More Jim Crow Family Courts - Defeating one state at a time!

Parents have been struggling far too long through the family courts. Both the parents and children are being abused and taken advantage of. It is too expensive and difficult for parents to fight this. And the time it takes to fight it causes the destruction of their relationships with their children, has cost many their health as well as some their lives.

Organized by: Sherry Palmer