By Phil Attinger
BARTOW — Florida legislators have been asked to look into reforms to help husbands who claim they have been victims of false domestic violence injunctions.
In what one citizen referred to as a pendulum shift in the justice system, men who claim to have had their lives destroyed by false accusations of domestic violence or child abuse are hoping locally-elected legislators can help solve the problem.
On Thursday, locally-elected Florida state representatives and senators who represent all or part of Polk County got to hear about the problem.
William Dunn of Lakeland, part of the Florida chapter of Fathers Supporting Fathers, said he ran into a problem in 2006: The Department of Children and Families believed accusations that he had abused his daughter and took her away from him for 11 months.
In June 2007, DCF held a hearing to revoke Dunn’s parental rights, but the girl changed her story on the first day on the hearing, saying she hadn’t been abused.
She was returned to Dunn, but since then, he said his life has been a shambles and both he and his daughter have suffered medically from the stress.
He said DCF has not wanted to help him clear his name despite now knowing that the accusations were false.
Although legislators did not want to debate what should be done to solve the problem, they heard quite a bit from other petitioners.
James Petruska of Hernando Country said he lost his daughter, his $300,000 home, and his $150,000 business as a result of a false domestic violation injunction made by his ex-wife. Although it has since been found to be false, he said he has been unable to regain what he lost, especially his daughter.
He has approached Senator Ronda Storms (R-Valrico) with the issue. Her district — District 10 — covers Hernando County and part of Polk County.Erik Romerhaus, with the SAVE (Stop Abuse of Violent Environments) Coalition in Washington, D.C., told the delegation that when the Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994, it was to protect women and men who were victims of domestic violence. Each state interprets it differently.
“Now the pendulum has swung a bit too far,” he said.
Tom Lemons of Spring Hill, who runs falsedvireports.com, said 80 percent of those injunctions are thrown out and used as a tactic in child custody cases.
He also alleged that the attorneys are the ones pushing the tactic, because it gives such a strong advantage.
If a woman makes a false claim of domestic violence, it can speed up the divorce process, Romerhaus said, so there is incentive to use it as a legal tactic, but it can drive the children out of the target parent’s life permanently.
In many cases, Romerhaus said, there is no due process for that accusation. Even if someone is innocent of the accusation, “you can kiss your kids goodbye.”
“I don’t blame the local judges as much as the federal law,” Clemons said. “Prosecutors are not filing cases on clear false allegations.”
When asked if she would be in favor of refining the statutes to provide some relief, Storms, a member of the Florida Bar, said that if someone is innocent, he deserves to have his name cleared and be with his children.
She would also like Romerhaus and others to work with domestic violence victims’ advocates to find out where they can agree on legal language that would help move the process forward.Senator JD Alexander (R-Lake Wales) expressed empathy for the men who spoke, and encouraged them to continue to seek a solution within the legal system.
Source
Posted by Children's Rights on Sunday, September 20, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Sunday, September 20, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
Part1: I couldn't have stated this better. As a father who recently won custody of my son and fighting ridiculous allegations against me, I have to concur by advising you to "keep your head in the game". Go about your daily life the best you can, resist backlash and outbursts, and conduct yourself accordingly. The judge will decide very critically who the best parent is for the child(ren) and the parent who clearly shows restraint, professionalism and positive attitude is the one likely to be awarded custody. I never spoke negatively about his mother regardless of my personal feelings of her. The children are the ones caught in the middle and are vulnerable to coercion, victimization, and other negative influences so be a good paarent. The best thing is to be calm and supportive. If the other parent isn't, well, that's their problem. Don't give them ammunition to use against you. Most importantly, seek out an attorney who specializes in these types of cases. Do a little research by seeing if there are client reviews online of the potential attorney and use that to help you choose the right one. I advise one that is aggressive too. Typical family practices want to seek a compromise as quick as possible but the aggressive ones have a more vested interest in winning. You get what you pay for. My attorney also happens to be a circuit court judge who has been practicing law since the early 1970's so he has seen everything there is. Be prepared to pay out too. How much is your child worth? I'm not rich by any means but I borrowed everything I could to fight this. My child is worth every penny to me so I will fight until I'm penniless if that's what it takes. Child custody battles START at around $3,500 so be ready for that. Those who believe in you can help out too. Don't try and take it on all by yourself. Get support from your church members, family and neighbors. There is strength in numbers folks. Have to take a polygraph? If it is absolutely necessary and your attorney agrees, get one from an entity that is NOT on the government payroll. That cannot be stressed enough. Those government agencies are being paid to find you guilty or else their funding is cut off since they cannot then refer you to (you guessed it) a state-ran counseling program of some sort. Same goes for exams like psychosexual and psycological types. Again, take the advice of your attorney and do NOT speak about your case to anyone other than him or people you trust, and I mean trust with your life. It is true that "what you say can be used against you" so heed that warning when you are read your rights. That's why you hired an attorney. He knows what to say and will ask you the questions he wants answers to. So other than what you say to him, shut the hell up and stop posting rediculousness on Facebook, or any other social media site. IT WILL COME BACK AND HAUNT YOU. -->
ReplyDeletePart2: You also need to write down thoughts or questions that are relevant to pass on to your attorney. He will give you a list of things he needs answers to so be thorough and clear. gather up text messages and emails that pertain to your case. help your attorney out with tasks like that so he can work faster. Another tip is to take some time to write down a summarized timeline and dates of events that led up to this event. The "who/what/when/where/how" stuff will help him develop a strategy for you. If you make them do all the legwork and digging for answers, this will likely cost you time and even more money so help out wherever you can. Be proactive in your case but not a nuisance. Email him breaking news when it happens and log everything so you don't forget. As for the kids, know who their teachers are, where they go to school, who their dentist/doctors are, etc. This shows you are involved in their lives. The judge will often ask these kinds of questions and will help you look good. You should know that stuff anyway but if not, get on it. Finally, be patient! Custody cases often take months and even beyond a year to resolve so be prepared for the long haul if need be. Good luck to all of you in your fight for your children.
ReplyDeleteThe Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers
ReplyDeleteThe 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) provides funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.
The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.
The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.
We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.
For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.
The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
DeleteHOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."