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
What does alimony have to do with “The Baby Mama Syndrome”? Next to nothing. Only married people getting a divorce can get alimony. On the other hand, Florida legislators keep trying to pass alimony “reform,” a code word for changing the law to the disadvantage of people who need protection or help.
The proponents of “alimony reform” combine it with a provision that would require a judge to “presume” that parents, whether they’re married to each other or not, are entitled to 50-50 time-sharing of their children. In other words, the judge would be told by the law to assume that each parent is entitled to have the child half the time.
Children and parents who have undergone forced separation from each other in the absence of abuse, including cases of parental alienation, are highly subject to post-traumaticstress, and reunification efforts in these cases should proceed carefully and with sensitivity. Alienated children seem to have a secret wish for someone to call their bluff, compelling them to reconnect with the parent they claim to hate; despite strongly held positions of alignment, alienated children want nothing more than to be given the permission and freedom to loveand be loved by both parents (Baker, 2010). Yet the influence of the alienating parent is too strong to withstand, and children’s fear that the alienating parent may fall apart or withdraw his or her love holds them back. Research has shown that many alienated children can transform quickly from refusing or staunchly resisting the rejected parent to being able to show and receive love from that parent, followed by an equally swift shift back to the alienated position when back in the orbit of the alienating parent (Fidler and Bala, 2010). Thus while children’s stated wishes regarding parental residence and contact in contested custody afterdivorce should be considered, they should not be determinative in cases of parental alienation.
Reunification efforts subsequent to prolonged absence should be undertaken with service providers with specialized expertise in parental alienation reunification. A number of models of intervention have been developed, the best-known being Warshak’s (2010) Family Bridges Program, an educative and experiential program focused on multiple goals: allowing the child to have a healthy relationship with both parents, removing the child from the parental conflict, and encouraging child autonomy, multiple perspective-taking, and critical thinking. Sullivan’s Overcoming Barriers Family Camp (Sullivan et al, 2010), which combines psycho-educational and clinical intervention within an environment of milieu therapy, is aimed toward the development of an agreement regarding the sharing of parenting time, and a written aftercare plan. Friedlander and Walters’ (2010) Multimodal Family Intervention provides differential interventions for situations of parental alignment, alienation, enmeshment and estrangement. All of these programs emphasize the clinical significance of children coming to regard their parents as equally valued and important in their lives, while at the same time helping enmeshed children relinquish their protective role toward their alienating parents.
In reunification programs, alienated parents will benefit from guidelines with respect to their efforts to provide a safe, comfortable, open and inviting atmosphere for their children. Ellis (2005) outlines five strategies for alienated parents: (1) erode children’s negative image by providing incongruent information; (2) refrain from actions that put the child in the middle of conflict; (3) consider ways to mollify the anger and hurt of the alienating parent; (4) look for ways to dismantle the coalition between the child and alienating parent and convert enemies to allies; and (5) never give up on reunification efforts. As much as possible, Warshak (2010) recommends, alienated parents should try to expose their children to people who regard them, as parents, with honor and respect, to let children see that their negative opinion, and the opinion of the alienating parent, is not shared by the rest of the world. This type of experience will leave a stronger impression than anything the alienated parent can say on his or her own behalf, according to Warshak.
As Baker (2010) writes, alienated parents acutely feel the hostility and rejection of their children. These children seem cruel, heartless, and devaluing of their parents. Yet it is important to realize that from the child’s perspective, it is the targeted parent who has rejected them; they have been led to believe that the parent whom they are rejecting does not love them, is unsafe, and has abandoned them. Thus, the primary response of the alienated parent must always be one of loving compassion, emotional availability, and absolute safety. Patience and hope, unconditional love, being there for the child, is the best response that alienated parents can provide their children, even in the face of the sad truth that this may not be enough to bring back the child.
With alienating parents, it is important to emphasize that as responsible parenting involves respecting the other parent’s role in the child’s life, any form of denigration of a former partner and co-parent is harmful to children. Children’s connections to each parent must be fully respected, to ensure their well being, as children instinctively know, at the core of their being, that they are half their mother and half their father. This is easier said than done, as alienating parents are themselves emotionally fragile, with a prodigious sense of entitlement and need to control (Richardson, 2006), and thus pose significant clinical challenges. Yet poisoned minds and instilled hatred toward a parent is a very serious form of abuse of children. When children grow up in an atmosphere of parental alienation, their primary role model is a maladaptive, dysfunctional parent. It is for this reason that many divorce specialists (e.g., Fidler and Bala, 2010) recommend custody reversal in such cases, or at least a period of separation between a child and an alienating parent during the reunification process with an alienated parent. I have come to believe, however, that the means of combating alienation should not themselves be alienating, and that a non-punitive approach is most effective, with co-parenting being the primary goal. Thus engaging and involving the alienating parent in reunification programs, whenever possible, is critical (Sullivan et al, 2010).
Thank you to the members and supporters of Parental Alienation Awareness Organization USANorth Texas Chapter who made valuable contributions to the article, both with personal stories and expert advice.
What if you get pregnant, your partner has abandoned you, and you happen to live in Missouri where there is ONE clinic which provides abortions? What if you're also financially or geographically unable to exercise that particular option? The Republicans have made sure that you must birth that baby, welcome to single-parenthood! According to GOP Presidential 'hopeful' Rick Santorum, you will be the leading cause of gun violence. You thought things were bleak and hopeless before, now you're carrying the weight of this country's gun violence problem squarely on your expectant shoulders.
Make Change Happen - Suit up in one of our red shirts for our 2016 YEAR OF ACTION to Stop Court Crimes. Our year of action will focus on legislative advocacy, direct action, media advocacy and … Read more
Fight Judicial Child Trafficking The Center for Judicial Excellence has been working for nearly a … Read more
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE YOUR STORY WITH US?
If you are a child or adult survivor of the divorce courts and would like to share your story online or with the news media, please contact us at info@centerforjudicialexcellence.org. Any funders who are interested in supporting the expansion of this project are also encouraged to contact Kathleen Russell at this same email address. Thank you for your interest.
Together, we can fix it!
Because judges don't want a accurate reflection of what takes place in familyhearings. Why believe your own eyes and ears when you can just listen to the "honorable judge"? Mandatory recording of ALL family hearings is an issue I am contacting our local legislators to sponsor as a bill to become law/ rule etc.(HINT, HINT, HINT) The majority if not all 20 circuit courts have the ability to record audio/video effortlessly but many judges if not all decline to. If recording family hearings is left to a judge's discretion it won't happen. FYI we don't need a little old lady pecking away at a machine to record hearings it is done digitally and cheaply in a lot of court rooms.
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.
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 attorneysand 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.
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!
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 schoolin 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."
"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.
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.
The proponents of “alimony reform” combine it with a provision that would require a judge to “presume” that parents, whether they’re married to each other or not, are entitled to 50-50 time-sharing of their children. In other words, the judge would be told by the law to assume that each parent is entitled to have the child half the time.
