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
In the summer of 1999, when I was utterly confused why I was in trouble with CPS, it occurred to me to search the internet to see if other people were having similar problems with Oregon CPS.
That is how I found Will and Pamela Gaston's "A Voice for Children" website. They had been heavily involved in court cases for several years. I was absolutely SHOCKED at how lawless the Oregon courts were and the absolutely corrupt, insane decisions Gastons were getting. Obviously the Constitution did not apply, nor did any actual laws either. CPS had a free hand to do whatever they wanted to. The courts would contrive any shitty "decision" necessary to defend the Status Quo and keep the agencies operating at their full, evil capacity. Everybody working in the system has a "get out of jail free" card. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
Watching how Pamela presented her cases to GET THE TRUTH ON THE RECORD was an extremely useful learning curve to me.
Along the line, it occurred to a bunch of us that we did not merely have a problem in our particular state- it was a nation-wide problem.
Not since the overthrow of the Weimar Republic have the leaders of a major democracy used their offices and the mass media to disseminate invective against millions of their own citizens. In fact it was Adolph Hitler who urged that “the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people” and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that “as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.” Using children to tug on our heartstrings may be not only a weakness of the sentimental. It also may be a ploy by those cynical and unscrupulous enough to exploit children for their own purposes. This is likely to be remembered as one of the most diabolical perversions of governmental power in our history, a time when we allowed children to be used and abused by fast-talking government officials and paid for it with our families, our social order and our constitutional rights.-- STEPHEN BASKERVILLE (in about 2000)
I've previously noted William S. Burroughs and his"cut-up technique," where you take a perfectly understandable linear text, cut it up into individual words or phrases, and then reassemble it all back together again into a new, wholly inexplicable and completely non-linearartistic expression. Well that seems to have happened in this new federal lawsuit filed against Judge Manno Schurr. I'm rarely this effusive, but let me be clear -- I believe these pro selitigants have lifted the mechanical, soul-sucking drudgery of preparing a complaint into the lofty realms of high art. Indeed, these visionaries should be applauded for confronting and challenging the reader, and for daring to radically reimagine -- nay -- forquite literally unshackling us -- from the small-minded, restrictive and fundamentally bourgeois chains of Rule 8(a). I'm fairly certain Judge King will see it the same way, don't you agree? Posted by South Florida LawyersLabels: Judge Valerie Manno Schurr, William S. Burroughs
The United States Constitution is the wellspring of civil
rights for American citizens. The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights,
subsequent Amendments, and Supreme Court rulings, define our fundamental
freedoms and outline our unique system of law which, in the words of Founding
Father John Adams, assures that American democracy remains a “government of
laws and not of men.”
The term “civil rights” refers to the fundamental freedoms
of the individual. These rights are rooted in the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution, ratified in 1868:
No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,
nor shall any State deprive any persons of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
The original purpose behind the 14th Amendment was to
protect the rights of Blacks newly freed from slavery by President Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation. Lamentably, southern states passed a series of
so-called Jim Crow laws during the following decades that promoted racial
segregation and discrimination, all under the guise of “separate but equal.”
Beginning in 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court began to strike down these laws.
Once again, Americans’ fundamental liberties are being
challenged. This time, the justification emanates from a social mandate to curb
intimate partner aggression, commonly referred to as “domestic violence.” This
Special Report enumerates and analyzes the far-reaching impacts of domestic
violence laws on Americans’ civil rights.
“We must scrupulously guard the
civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We
must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge
designed to attack our civilization.” —Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Following are the 12 civil rights that have
been undermined by Family and Domestic Violence laws.
Exposé is defined ~1. The act or an instance of bringing a scandal, crime, etc., to public notice.2. (Communication Arts/ Journalism & Publishing) an article, book, or statement that discloses a scandal, crime, etc.
Fighting Fathers of Florida will begin a series on Garbage Attorneys - they will explore how their excesses harm our children, how the courts are complicit in allowing this to happen so that their fellow Florida Bar members can profit, and what YOU can do to stop it.
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice "
– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).
Excerpts from the Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities
"No disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer chooses not to act or acts within bounds of such discretion.... The rules simply provide a framework for the ethical practice of law..... Violation of a rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached.... They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability....
Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such duty."
As one can see, these rules have very little significance in relation to the ethical conduct of members of The Florida Bar and Florida lawyers' implied duty to the public as officers of the Court. What the rules seem to give, the preamble nullifies with a few skillfully crafted sentences carefully embedded within it. Therefore, these rules are apparently nothing more than window dressing to disguise an ugly and vile commercial industry that reaps its rewards from the miseries and misfortunes of others. The Rules of Professional Conduct appear to be a cruel hoax upon the public which gives clients a false impression that the practice of law is honorable and ethical. The Supreme Court of Florida approved every word contained in these rules. So, who do you believe the Court is really trying to protect--the client or the Florida lawyer?
If you feel the need to file an official complaint with The Florida Bar against a Florida lawyer, click here to get the official form. This form is in Adobe Acrobat Format (PDF) so almost anybody can print it using their own computer and printer. It is certainly a lot easier than getting someone at The Florida Bar to mail one to you. Use the free Adobe Acrobat Reader software to print it or any other PDF document you encounter. Download Acrobat Reader here if you do not already have it on your computer. Before filing your complaint you should peruse the Rules of Professional Conduct and pick out the particular rules that were violated. Cite the specific rules violated in your complaint and describe how they were violated. Keep your complaint reasonably short and stay on point. Attach additional pages and copies of documents, etc. that will help illustrate the rule violations. It does no good to rant and rave even though it may feel good at the moment. Good luck!
If you need to file a judicial complaint against a Florida judge or judicial officer click HERE.
"Children need both parents to be involved in their lives even when parents don't live together anymore!"
Loving Florida
father's like "Ray" are being denied their parental rights by the
other parent and their Florida Attorneys,
Florida Judges and Magistrates, and Florida's Judicial System! Family courts
routinely curtail parenting rights...Support father's rights as well as the
children's best interests! We are loving, caring, God-fearing, hard working
individuals!
These attorneys and the Family Courts need to prove why a Father
should NOT have 50% Equal Time Share Arrangement! This is basically a crime of
parental alienation which goes on every day in Florida's Family Courts Some People raise
their voices, other People do not feel empowered to do so. Please help us put a
stop to these human and civil rights violations." ~ Tina
The best interests of your children are the most important thing for you to think about when you make a Parenting Plan Agreement.
A parenting plan can include anything that parents need to agree on about their children. The plan can be changed at any time with the agreement of both parents.
If you want your parenting agreement to be recognized by law as a Parenting Plan it must be developed in a particular way. It needs to be written down, dated and signed by both of you.
What are the Advantages?
Because a parenting plan is worked out and agreed by both of you, agreeing in this way means you have control over the process and you won’t need to fight things out in court. Going to court can be a tense, traumatic, expensive, long term experience and it can be hard to get off the roundabout. In some situations court involvement is absolutely necessary, but parents who have been through the system say to avoid it if you can.
Coming to a workable agreement without going to court saves parents a lot of money, time and distress and, more importantly, it is better for your children. Research clearly shows that it’s not the separation of their parents that harms children the most; it’s the ongoing arguments and negativity between the parents, and the anxiety that children feel when their parents can’t co-operate about things that affect their daily lives.
When children know that their parents have talked about what’s best for them, and know that a plan is written down, they are likely to feel cared for and safer. If your children can predict the shape of their lives and know that you will keep the adult issues between adults, they will be able to manage the stresses and fears of the separation much better.
What a Family Court Can Really Do Effective Remedies to Parental Alienation
By Andrew J Thompson
Recently I’ve dealt with several cases in which the objective, outward behavior of an alienating parent comes across as anything but harmful to the relationship between the parent and child.
For example, Mom “delivers” the children to the hallway outside her apartment at the time Dad comes to pick them up for parenting time. The children, all boys, 15, 13 and 11, all refuse to go. Mom says, “I’m sorry, they just don’t want to go with you.” Then she ushers them back into her apartment.
What’s wrong with this scene? The mother’s attorney argues, “What else is she supposed to do?”
The reality is that the children couldn’t get to this point without Mom playing a significant role in the outcome. But undoing the harm can be very challenging. What if the children won’t go with Dad even if he picks them up after school?
The bottom line is that once parental alienation has been engaged, reversing the problem means that the alienating parent has to feel the other parents’ pain. If her attorney says “what can Mom do?”, the first thing I have to suggest is that she pay Dad’s attorney fees for having to bring this to her attention, in a way that actually gets her attention.
The core of the truth is that what this mother has had to do that brings the children to a point where they won’t even go with their father is something very brutal – though none of it may be visible on the surface. She has subtly, or much more aggressively, given the children reasons to feel that time with their father, or even any relationship at all, is unnecessary or serving their own interests.
Alienation of parental affection is drastic and extremely harmful to a child. Typically the alienating parent will cite a laundry list of defects in the other parent – anger, alcohol, laziness, lack of concern and involvement, dishonesty, infidelity, sometimes even violence – as reasons for allowing their children’s relationship with the other parent to die.
But when you take children who’ve grown up and lived with parents with any or all of these factors – and stayed in their lives – they continue to love and cherish that parent, even seek their affections. In reality, an alienating parent doesn’t need to alienate a bad parent – that parent will drift to the sidelines without any help. The involved parent is a good parent.
When a parent is removed from his or her role by the other parent, it takes a very strong message to change the dynamic that set the backdrop for alienation.
So to answer the other attorney’s question about “what can she do?”, the first answer to that is, well, she could pay my client’s attorney fees for having to bring this to the court’s attention. Absent that minimal step, it’s doubtful she gets any message other than a subtle form of reinforcement, i.e. this is harder on him than it is on her.
But you or may not be able to persuade the court to take that step on a first try. If not, you have to have secondary remedies to offer. Realistically, only three things ultimately work:
(2) incarceration: drastic as it seems, it becomes a necessary remedy in many, if not most cases of parental alienation, because even financial sanctions tend to fail; and
(3) change of custody: ultimately this is quite often the only change that enable the children to restore their relationship with an alienated parent. Anything short of it, means the alienating parent remains in control, and the kids do not have the chance to get what they need from the parent who has been boxed out of their lives.
Yet in many cases, a court will not take any of these measures until it has seen that really nothing else works. Often, courts craft remedies that only serve to reinforce the existing alienation tot he point the alienated parent cannot afford counsel and is unable to make the arguments on his own to get the court to do what truly needs done. When that happens, parent and child(ren) both lose. The parent is ultimately wiped off the slate from the children’s lives.
A great deal of education must be conducted by attorneys for alienated parents – and those attorneys need to understand what they are dealing with in order to accomplish that.
The wise custody attorney will explain to the court what is really going on, and explain that “band aid” types of remedies won’t stop the “internal bleeding” that is occurring in the relationship between the parent and children. To save what it is the court intends to save, strong and meaningful remedies need to be put in place and as early as possible.
If you’re a parent, grandparent or friend facing a situation involving parental alienation, or an attorney with a difficult case needing help presenting your case to the court, please contact the Thompson Law Office today at (317) 564-4976 or via email at andrew.thompson@thompsonlawoffice.com
Millions of Daughters do not have contact with their biological fathers in the U.S and around the globe, and can not benefit from the positive influences this core relationship provides.
Interference by one parent in the relationship of a child and the other parent is almost never in the child's best interests. In fact, in extreme cases, actions by one parent to alienate the affections of the child from the other parent, to interfere win the other parent's visitation rights, or to remove the child to a distant state or country can often lead to liability in tort. See generally E. Borris, "Torts Arising Out of Interference with Custody and Visitation," 7 Divorce Litigation 192 (1995). Tort liability is not always an option, however, as many courts refuse to award damages based upon interference with visitation rights. E.g., Cosner v. Ridinger, 882 P.2d 1243 (Wyo.1994).
A noncustodial parent is not always left without a remedy, however, simply because courts in that parent's jurisdiction refuse to recognize tort actions arising out of interference with his or her parental rights. This article discusses a different type of liability which may result from interference with the noncustodial parent's rights: loss of custody. The article will first discuss whether a party may generally obtain a change of custody based upon such interference. The article will then examine specific acts by a custodial parent which may cause a court to change custody, including denial of visitation rights, alienation of the child's affections away from the noncustodial parent, and removal of the child to a distant jurisdiction. The section on alienation of the child's affections includes a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and recent cases that have dealt with PAS. The article concludes with a suggestion of possible provisions that practitioners may insert in custody decrees in order to prevent future problems between custodial and noncustodial parents.
Interference Amounting to a Substantial Change in Circumstances
Most courts and experts agree that except in unusual cases it is most important for a child to have a strong relationship with both parents. Thus, courts will typically conclude that an award of custody to the parent who is most likely to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent is in the child's best interests. For this reason, if a custodial parent has demonstrated in the past a pattern of interference with the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, unless other facts dictate a different holding, courts will frequently conclude that a substantial change in circumstances justifying a change of custody has occurred.
Not surprisingly, there is a long-standing tradition of awarding a change of custody where the custodial parent has interfered with the parental rights of the other parent. The Court of Appeals of Maryland clearly established this point in Berlin v. Berlin, 239 Md. 52, 210 A.2d 380 (1965). In Berlin, the parties entered into a written separation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, incorporated into the court's order, custody of the children was awarded to the mother, and the father received reasonable visitation rights. In addition, the parties also agreed that the mother would notify the father if the mother moved out of the Washington metropolitan area. Subsequently, the mother began denying the father his right to visitation. For this reason, the father requested a change in custody. The trial court granted the father's request, and the mother appealed.
Specific Acts of Interference Which May Cause a Court to Change Custody
After a practitioner determines whether the relevant jurisdiction may award a change of custody based upon acts of interference with the noncustodial parent's rights, it must be determined which particular acts will justify such a change. The relevant authority indicates that three distinct fact patterns may justify a change. First, courts often award a change of custody if the custodial parent repeatedly interferes with the noncustodial parent's court- ordered visitation rights. Second, courts are inclined to award a change of custody if the custodial parent alienates the child's affections away from the noncustodial parent. Third, if the custodial parent removes the child to a distant jurisdiction without informing the noncustodial parent of the move, courts frequently order a change of custody. Each of these scenarios will be addressed in turn.
Frustration of Visitation Rights
The most common form of interference with parental rights which is remedied by courts occurs when custodial parents consistently refuse to turn children over to the noncustodial parents for court-ordered visitation. The fact that courts frequently order changes of custody in this circumstance is perfectly understandable, since court-ordered visitation is often the noncustodial parent's only connection to his or her children. If this visitation is frustrated, the child's best interests are clearly injured because the child will be completely deprived of a relationship with the noncustodial parent.
What 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 atYale 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?
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.
All were familiar with alienation and it's results. Everyone was not only gratified to see PAAO at the event, they all also acknowledged that PA is either a form of Domestic violence or on the continuum of Domestic Violence behaviors.
Un Estado-niñera, controlador, interventor y protector - 26-4 PADRES ARGENTINOS AUTOCONVOCADOS - 26-4 Padres de parana por la custodia compartida Año 2013 - 26-4 ASSOCIATION - ROBERTO TERRILE - CONVOCATORIA PARA EL 26 DE ABRIL 2013 A LOS TRIBUNALES DE FAMILIA - 26-4, 2013 Padres de la Guarda - 26-4 DERECHOS DE LA NIÑEZ Y ADOLESCENCIA, POLITICA DE ESTADO, YA! - Cibercampaña "vírica" de apoyo al 26-4 más enlaces al final de la entrada El 26 de Abril es el Día Internacional de la Igualdad Parental y la Corresponsabilidad Familiar. Por ello, el mejor...more »
