Saturday

Dear Politician...Where do you stand on Family Law Reform?


Letter Template To Your State and Federal Elected Officials Asking Where They Stand On Family Law Reform


“Have you ever wondered where your local State Representative or Senator stands on the presumption for equally shared parenting, or what they think about Judges using discretion to bypass equal parentage and access to children by Non-Custodial families? Well, let's find out. Fathers and Families is asking today that you go to Google and search your State's Legislative or General Assembly website to find your State level Representative and Senator (pick one Rep and one Senator) and email both asking where they stand on you being allowed to have equal access to your children and financially supporting them directly, as well as how to deal with Judges who prevent that.

World4Justice : Cyber Protest! - Boycottfamilylaw : Restore Children's Rights Worldwide - Family Justice & Child...
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, May 25, 2015
 

Once both have responded, come back to this post and type the name of the State you are in, the Rep/Senators name, and copy and paste their response.”


So, I wrote my own letter this morning and sent it off.

It’s important that each and every one of us let our officials know where we stand on Family Law reform, and what the consequences will be should they continue to ignore us.  Therefore, everyone should send this letter or a letter of their own making to their elected officials!

So, with this in mind, you are free to copy the letter I wrote and send it off yourself. 

To copy it, just hi-light it with your mouse and hit “control c”.  You can then paste it (“control v”) directly into your email or word document to edit and send it as you see fit.

If you’d like me to send you the word document, please email me: michael.loveandiron@gmail.com.

Note: Please do NOT send me a Facebook message asking for this document. I will NOT respond to those. If you want the word file, you must email me at the gmail account provided above.


Dear:

I believe 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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,

    













Sunday

We Will Not Remain Silent

Welcome new and old members alike.  Our organization's focus is REFORMING CURRENT ALIMONY LAW IN FLORIDA, with an eye on future family law issues.

Saturday

"He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help." ~ Abraham Lincoln

     

Post by Children's Rights.






Thursday

"Married? The Judicial Assault on your Unalienable, Natural Law Rights" ~ Don Mashak


Though this article focuses on the departures from the Rule of Law in the Divorce case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki vs. David Rucki, this writer takes a broader perspective. That broader being one addressing the importance of enforcing adherence to the the Rule of Law and Due Process; both of which are not only statutory requirements but Constitutional and Natural Law Rights of every person. (Before we go farther, this writer asserts that he would write the same article if the roles of the parties were reversed.) This article is a follow up to the latest hearing relating to this matter from January 10, 2014 and a call to action for the upcoming January 27, 2014 hearing for Lawyer Michelle MacDonald.""
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

     

[The next round in this battle against injustice occurs,Monday, January 27, 2014 at 9 AM Dakota County District Court, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN. State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota, Court file no. 19HA-CR-13-2934]

Let us begin with an intellectual and emotional appetizer intended to make you non-lawyer types hungry for the rest of the story.

Imagine finding yourself in this scenario, you and your spouse have been married nearly 20 years. You have built a successful business and have five children. To settle the Divorce, you agree to take the family home of 14 years and have custody of your 5 children while letting your spouse have parenting time, the business, and other properties.

Somewhere along the line your spouse sits you and the 5 children down at the table with a gun and says either “you are going to kill everyone” or “you are only going to kill yourself”.


More than a year after the divorce is settled, you find out about a hearing that you were not party to. With no evidentiary hearing or finding of fact, Sheriffs inform you must be out of the house and cannot tell the children why. You drop the children off at school and go home and pack only the one bag that the Sheriff’s deputy will let you pack. Everything else is lost to you. The children are to be taken care of by an undisclosed third party. And you leave your home of 14 years.


A year later, during a hearing to restore the divorce agreement and regain custody of the children, your lawyer is arrested during the hearing for reasons yet unknown and you are told to leave, as obviously the hearing will not continue. You take the files and other property left in the court room so they do not become “lost”. You later learn that after you left, the Judgeresumed the hearing with your lawyer in handcuffs, without glasses, shoes, files or a client….

Later you find that the children are back with your spouse, but two of them have run away and not been seen in months.

That should be enough to get your attention and peak your interest. 

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ~ Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

With that literary appetizer consumed, this writer hopes that the reader will find this writer’s perspective unique and thought provoking enough to be moved to action.

This writer sat in the Federal Court room in St. Paul, MN on January 10, 2014 and heard Judge Susan Richard Nelson ask Lawyer Michelle McDonald to produce Case Law Citations from the Federal 8th Circuit Court. As this writer listened, the following thought began to take root in this writers mind:

Can anyone wearing black robes arbitrarily deprive any US citizen of their Unalienable Natural Law Rights?

And with that thought, this writer set about answering this question using this thought process from one of his favorite recurring tweets:

You know those neat tricks & observations they use to catch the bad guys in major media and Hollywood shows? You need to start using them on your government. ~ @DMashak on Twitter (abbreviations & truncations removed)

And so we begin to use those neat tricks and observations to try to make sense of what has transpired and how Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson should rule.

In the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, the facts of interest to this writer are these....



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)