Key Issues Leading to the Feeling of Rights Being Taken Away

This sentiment that I am expressing touches on a deep and emotional issue that many parents, particularly divorced or separated parents, grapple with. The feeling that a parent’s "fundamental right" to raise or maintain a close relationship with their child has been undermined by legal or court systems is a pervasive concern. In many cases, especially in contentious divorces or custody disputes, parents may feel as though the system has failed to recognize or protect their parental rights.

Understanding Parental Rights in the Context of Divorce

In most legal systems, parental rights are grounded in the idea that both parents have an inherent right to raise and care for their children. These rights include the ability to make decisions about the child’s upbringing, education, health, and other fundamental matters. However, when a divorce or separation occurs, those rights can sometimes be altered, especially if there are concerns about the child’s well-being, such as:

• Custody battles: When parents disagree on custody arrangements, courts are tasked with making decisions based on the best interests of the child. This often results in one parent being awarded primary custody while the other has visitation rights, leading some parents to feel that their relationship with their child is unfairly limited.

• Child support and financial arrangements: In many cases, child support payments and visitation or custody schedules are linked. If a parent feels the financial aspect is unfair or the visitation rights are too limited, they may feel that their fundamental rights to a meaningful relationship with their child have been diminished.

• Allegations of abuse or neglect: When one parent makes allegations of abuse or neglect, even if they are later found to be false or unsubstantiated, it can lead to a temporary suspension of the accused parent’s custody rights, sometimes with the burden of proof placed on the accused parent to restore those rights.

Key Issues Leading to the Feeling of Rights Being Taken Away

1. Unilateral Decisions: Sometimes, one parent may make unilateral decisions about where the child lives, goes to school, or spends their time, especially if there is an imbalance of power or communication in the relationship. This can leave the other parent feeling sidelined and marginalized, as if their role as a parent has been reduced to that of a visitor rather than an active, decision-making member of the child’s life.

2. Parenting Time and Visitation: Many divorced or separated parents feel that the custody or visitation arrangements do not adequately allow them to be as involved in their child's life as they would like. Shared custody (which is ideally the default in many legal systems) may not be available in every case, leaving one parent with significantly less time with the child.

3. Parental Alienation: In some high-conflict divorces, one parent may try to alienate the child from the other parent, either through manipulation, negative comments, or other strategies. This can result in one parent feeling as though they have lost their child, emotionally or physically. Courts often do not act quickly enough to address parental alienation, and many parents report feeling that the legal system doesn’t adequately address this issue.

4. Bias in Family Courts: There is a well-documented concern about potential gender bias in family law, particularly regarding custody decisions. In many cases, mothers are still more likely to be awarded primary custody, which can lead fathers to feel that their rights as parents are not being equally considered. Conversely, some mothers feel that their rights are undermined in cases where they lose custody or are forced to accept less-than-ideal visitation schedules.

5. Legal and Financial Barriers: Some parents face significant legal and financial barriers to gaining or maintaining access to their children. The cost of legal representation can be prohibitive, particularly for lower-income parents, which may prevent them from having the resources to fight for a fair arrangement. This can leave them feeling like their fundamental rights to be a parent have been effectively "bought out" by a system that favors wealthier parents.

The Emotional Impact of Losing Parental Rights

For parents who are marginalized in custody decisions, the emotional toll is significant. These parents often feel:

• Disconnection: The inability to spend quality time with their children can create a feeling of emotional disconnection and loss, especially if the relationship was once strong.

• Anger and Resentment: Many parents feel anger or resentment toward the other parent, the legal system, or both for what they perceive as an unjust outcome. This can lead to ongoing conflict, further straining the relationship with the child.

• Isolation: In some cases, a parent may feel isolated, especially if the child is living primarily with the other parent or if the legal system has placed restrictions on their ability to interact with the child.

What Can Be Done to Protect Parental Rights and Parent-Child Bonds?

1. Shared Custody as the Default: Many family law experts advocate for shared custody (or joint physical custody) to be the default arrangement in divorce cases, unless there are compelling reasons not to (e.g., domestic violence, abuse, neglect). Shared custody recognizes that both parents play an important role in the child’s life and ensures that no parent is unduly marginalized.

2. Reforming Family Courts: There is a growing push for family court reforms to make decisions more equitable, with a focus on reducing bias, improving handling of parental alienation, and emphasizing mediation and co-parenting rather than adversarial litigation. Courts may also need to adopt more modern, flexible approaches to visitation, recognizing that every family is unique.

3. Improving Parental Alienation Awareness: As parental alienation becomes more widely recognized as a serious issue, courts may begin to take more decisive action to prevent or address it. Educating parents and legal professionals about the impact of alienation and offering therapy or counseling may help protect the parent-child bond.

4. Promoting Co-Parenting and Mediation: Programs that encourage cooperative co-parenting and mediation can help parents work together to make decisions in the child’s best interest. Mediation allows parents to have more control over the outcome and may prevent contentious litigation that harms the parent-child relationship.

5. Support for Parents: In many cases, providing more support for parents (financially, emotionally, or logistically) can help preserve the parent-child bond. This could involve subsidized or free legal services for low-income parents, access to counseling and mental health services, or the implementation of more flexible visitation arrangements.

6. Legal Advocacy for Parental Rights: There are advocacy groups and legal professionals who work specifically to protect parental rights in the context of divorce and custody disputes. These groups often advocate for reforms that emphasize fairness and the importance of both parents remaining involved in their child’s life, even after separation or divorce.

Final Thoughts

The idea that millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental rights to their own children "taken away" reflects a very real and painful experience for many. It highlights the emotional weight of losing not just access to a child but also the ability to be an active, guiding figure in that child's life. While family law systems are designed to protect the well-being of children, the system is not without flaws, and many parents find themselves feeling marginalized or sidelined in the process.

The challenge moving forward is to ensure that the system works in a way that is fair, equitable, and, most importantly, centered around the best interests of the child. At the same time, it’s critical to recognize and respect the rights of both parents to maintain meaningful relationships with their children, whenever possible.

Do you think reforming the family law system could better protect the parent-child bond, or are there other ways to address these concerns?

Reform Conference -- DIVORCECORP.COM

By Phyllis Schlafly

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother.

.... If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?

It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.


When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.

An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.

An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason forshared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.

Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."

Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.

This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."

An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

Read more: http://​nationalwriterssyndicate.co​m/content/view/145/2/ 

• Fathers' Rights Attorney Jeffery M. Leving Interviews President Barack Obama on Responsible Fatherhood

Related articles

• Some Facts About Divorce: Eye-Opening Divorce Statistics
• "Justice" doesn't favor the children.
• How Does Paternity Factor Into A Child Custody Case?
• Family Court Reform and Parental Rights | Petition2Congress
• It's a trillion dollar industry getting more barbaric by the day, and we have to join together nationwide to save lives. Here's the proof:
• DadsDivorce Live: Co-Parenting Through Conflict
• Apply Civil Rights to Family Law - End the Dysfunctional Family Court System
• "Best interests of the child."
• Difficulties in the Family Courtroom ~ Disparities in State Family Courts
• Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

The Truth Behind Who "WINS" A Custody Case

THE TRUTH BEHIND WHO "WINS" A CUSTODY CASE

by Wendy Archer

Written by Wendy Archer

Organizer & Host of Bubbles of LOVE Day DFW

contact information: wendyarcher@rocketmail.com

The truth about litigation and the conduct of family court judges is not pretty. In fact the truth is so downright ugly that it is literally unbelievable to most people who have not experienced it firsthand. Most of us were raised to believe that our justice system ensures that in the end justice is served. Of course we know that there is misconduct and even corruption in some situations but surely that would not be true in cases involving child abuse, so we assume. Everyone knows that child abusers are considered to be on the on the lowest rung of the ladder in any and all social groups and surely no judge would knowingly and intentionally put a child into the hands of an abuser, right? Wrong. In fact, grossly wrong.

The truth is that child abusers are awarded full custody of the children they abuse on a regular basis and in many situations the family court judges KNOW they are putting these children into the hands of their abusers.

Unbelievable? YES. True? YES. But HOW and WHY can this possibly be true you must be wondering if you are one of the lucky few who has not witnessed this very sick operation of our family court system.

The HOW and WHY can usually be boiled down to a few simple factors. FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS.

One very common scenario is as follows...

There is a couple who has been divorced for several years. They share exactly equal parenting time per court orders, an exact 50/50 split of time. One parent is extremely narcissistic, very emotionally abusive and unusually wealthy. The other parent is mild mannered, compliant and very financially poor. The extremes between the two parents' personality traits and financial situations make the conditions right for a contentious custody issue to surface at any time, especially if the differences become more and more extreme over time. 

Narcissist personalities have an unbridled sense of entitlement. If they want it, they feel entitled to it. Period. Narcissistic personalities also lack any fear of consequences, including consequences as serious as jail time. When these traits are combined with unlimited financial resources, the results can be horrifying. For example, if a narcissistic and wealthy parent decides they want to violate court orders and withhold a child from the other parent they will do so with bold entitlement and without fear of any consequences. In fact they will probably even act proud of their illegal and unethical actions. This happens all too frequently. It seems the remedy would be simple in that the victim parent would seek legal assistance and the parent in violation of court orders would be swiftly corrected and punished by a family court judge.

Shockingly and sadly, that is not the reality of what most often happens. After attempting to beg, plead and reason with the narcissistic parent to stop violating court orders, the victim parent usually does hire an attorney and naively assumes that a family court judge will act swiftly with integrity. After all, that's what the family court judges are there for. Little does the victim parent know that the outcome of the case might very well have nothing at all to do with laws or ethics or what is in "the best interest of the children." With the "right attorneys" and unlimited financial resources, the narcissistic parent can and very often does ultimately purchase custody of the children.

Even in situations where it is 100% documented and 100% indisputable that the children have been abused by this person AND that the victim parent is the only mentally healthy and safe parent...even confirmed by the unbiased and objective expert opinions of doctors who have evaluated the children and even confirmed by the abuser's own admission... it is not only possible but likely the narcissistic wealthy abusive parent will obtain full custody of the children. The narcissistic parent will use their most coveted skills and weapons; charming people and money. The abusive parent's narcissistic skills combined with the legal tactic of financially and emotionally destroying the victim parent during litigation is very effective. With their financial resources, the narcissistic parent can hire a literal army of attorneys and you can be certain that they will hire attorneys who have very close relationships with the judge and are most likely some of the judge's top campaign contributors (yes, they really can do that.) This alone will almost assure the narcissistic parent of purchasing custody of their children.

However, narcissists derive intense pleasure out of harming their victims. Therefore, they usually take full advantage of their attorneys' strategy of draining the victim parent of every single penny they have until the victim parent simply has no choice to but sign a "settlement" under extreme duress.

Remember, the victim parent had little or no money to begin with. With the help of their "judge friendly" attorneys and the judge it's only a matter of time before the narcissistic parent has the victim parent financially devastated to the point where they literally can't provide food, clothing or shelter for the children. Many of these victim parents lose everything, every cent they ever saved and even their homes. Their credit is destroyed. They literally can't buy food or clothing for the children and must resort to assistance from various organizations to survive.

Again, this destruction of the victim parent is an INTENTIONAL ACT by the narcissistic parent.

The narcissistic parent WANTS to make the victim parent unable to provide food and clothing and shelter for their own children. 

The narcissistic parent has the power to stop this cruelty against their own children at any time. 

When the situation reaches this point of crisis, the victim parent simply has no choice but to face the fact that if they continue with litigation that they WILL end up homeless and unable to provide ANYTHING for their children including food. It is at this well-timed point of the planned attack that the narcissistic parent will present a "settlement offer" to the victim parent, knowing that the victim parent literally has no choice but to sign what in truth is a cruel and abusive ultimatum. 

The narcissistic parent will take full advantage of the situation to ensure that the new modified orders will solidify their ability to abuse the children with provisions such as giving the abusive parent "exclusive psychological control of the children" and "exclusive educational decision making." 

The abusive parent realizes that this is their opportunity to have it "ordered" that they can abuse their children, even going so far as to make it clear that they want it ordered that they can have 'full mind control' over their children.

NOTHING Justifies the Minimization or Removal of a FIT and LOVING Parent. NOTHING!

The bill will:
1. Design a “three strikes” for custodial parents who intend to subvert visitation with the non custodial parent and the child.
2. Visitation exchanges will occur at a location in the local police department. Each parent will identify themselves using a fingerprint scanner. Name, date will be recorded into a database.
3. Strike one. Custodial or non custodial parent does not show for the visitation exchange.
4. Strike two. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange. Child support obligations for the non custodial parent are relieved that month, and will resume the following month.
5. Strike three. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange, triggering a third degree felony for T.I.C.K – Tortious Interference Child Kidnapping. The State Attorney or Prosecutor will file charges on the custodial parent for T.I.C.K.
6. Exceptions will be made as necessary for health emergencies.
7. Immunity for State Attorneys, Attorneys and Judges will be removed if those parties fail to enforce T.I.C.K. Complaints for violations by any party including Judges and attorneys will be maintained in the T.I.C.K database, available as public information for no charge.
8. Non custodial parents who do not appear for parenting time at the exchange will trigger a 50% increase in child support for that month, since the burden of support will be on the custodial parent.

“He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” ~ Malachi 4:6 (NIV)

IT IS TIME

Post by Stop Mental Child Abuse.

Washington D.C. Family Preservation Civil Rights Movement Rally To Be Biggest Yet

Washington D.C. Family Preservation Civil Rights Movement Rally To Be Biggest Yet

April 19, 2012 to April 22, 2012 promises to be bigger than past years for family rights activist, advocates, families, and leaders to come together in Washington, D.C.

From Leon Koziol.com ~ All the major work and sacrifice have already been made, everything is legal, no arrests are needed. There is a site permit, an open mike for public statements (west lawn, Senate Park at 2pm) and lobbying efforts throughout the weekend.

How much more carnage and Thomas Ball incidents will it take before victimized fathers, concerned mothers and their families become finally recognized as American citizens entitled to justice, due process and equal protection under the law? http://freekeene.com/2011/06/16/thomas-james-ball-self-immolated-in-protest-of-the-justice-system/

Get viral, make your own commitment today, visit us at Parenting Rights Institute and Leon Koziol.com (Dr. Leon Koziol, founder of the march).

Momentum is building. Help us contact actors like Alec Baldwin and our representatives in Congress to join us next month for a long overdue statement of reform! http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com

So Meanwhile, indigent fathers continue to be incarcerated right here at home while our veterans are taking their own lives in response to oppressive domestic relations laws. If people of stature can make this kind of commitment to a foreign cause, why is it that victims of divorce and Family Court find excuses to avoid a similar stand? It’s not going to happen by relying upon your neighbor or an event sponsor to exercise basic rights guaranteed to each and every one of us under the American Constitution.

It’s time to act, to organize your friends, wives, moms, dads and supporters, and join us for the Founding Fathers March in Washington on April 20th, 2012
http://leonkozioljd.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/will-george-clooney-join-the-founding-fathers-march

The event is scheduled to hold an annual In The Best Interest Of The Child Congressional Education Panel, a Founding Fathers March, Capitol Tour and rally on the west lawn of the Capitol.

Concluding each night of this event is an annual purple light vigil. The vigil consist of a purple tree being lite, purple glow sticks, a bell toll for each child whose life has been lost with their names read a loud.

This event is sponsored in part by a Ohio based non-profit organization We The People Family Preservation, Inc.

The Founding Fathers March is facilitated by Leon Koziol J.D of New York. For those interested in participating Leon may be contacted at:
Email: admin@LeonKoziol.Com

Telephone: (315) 796-4000

For those wishing to speak on the west lawn of our Capitol please contact Robert James Patterson at this number (614) 987-5714

Accommodations for this event can be found at http://www.officialdcrallyfest.org

Also additional information for this event may be obtained from the office of We The People Family Preservation, Inc main office (740) 622- 0168. Ask for Ms. L. Wilson

Post by Children's Rights.

Psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts not qualified ~ Channel 4 News

Post by Stop Mental Child Abuse.

Around 20 per cent of psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts are not qualified, according to a Channel 4 News investigation broadcast tonight, writes producer Phil Carter.

http://bcove.me/ewstd4vv 

The findings are based on research published on Wednesday for the Family Justice Council (FJC). It was led by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire.

Prof Ireland and her team were given unprecedented access to psychologists' expert witness reports from three undisclosed courts across England by the FJC, an arm's length body of the Ministry of Justice.

Experts play a critical role in family court cases: research suggests that at least one expert is used in 90 per cent of public law children's proceedings and many cases involve three or more experts.

The majority of these experts are psychiatrists and psychologists, employed to provide expert opinion on a range of matters in these cases, typically including questions as to whether parents have the ability to care for their children, display personality disorders or other psychological issues and whether any such diagnoses are treatable within a timescale suitable for the children involved.

Channel 4 News spoke to families across the country involved in court proceedings and heard time and again concerns about the experts used by the courts to determine whether children are at risk and should be removed from their birth parents.

Secrecy

But because of the secrecy of the family courts - designed to protect the identity of the children at the heart of proceedings - the experts used have largely been beyond scrutiny.

This research is the first time these concerns have been to some degree independently substantiated. The research found serious concerns across a range of issues beyond the startling finding that around a fifth of so-called psychologist expert witnesses are not qualified.

The assessments of the expert reports found that some 20 per cent of the psychologists were working beyond their area of knowledge; around a third had no experience of mental health assessments; and some 90 per cent of experts were not in current practice.

The net result was that the research concluded that around 65 per cent of expert reports in the study were of either 'poor' or 'very poor' quality.

Professor Ireland told Channel 4 News: "I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read, not just in terms of qualification but also the quality of the reports that we read ..."

'Draconian'

Nigel Priestley, a lawyer closely involved in family proceedings, told Channel 4 News of the gravity of the research's findings. "After the death penalty the most draconian act that the state can do is remove a family's child," he said. "What is at stake for many carers is the loss of their children and on the basis of a report which might or indeed might not be questionable."

He regularly deals with cases where parents feel the expert evidence is flawed. But it is the scale of the problem revealed by the new research which has surprised him.

He said: "If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified that is not just a mess, that is staggering, wrong ... this is not just about making money, this is about removing children very often or, more importantly, protecting children ..."

Disturbing

One of the more surprising findings of the research was that some psychologists were recorded as assessing parents without ever meeting or seeing them.

Prof Ireland told Channel 4 News: "You should never be in a position where you diagnose somebody, or make judgements on them, if you haven't seen them. It goes completely against code of conduct and ethics and it is impossible. You can’t do a paper assessment on a human being, you have to meet that person, understand their interactions, build a rapport and then take your judgement on the basis of that."

But Channel 4 News has learnt that this is not just a problem confined to psychologists. One mother who spoke on condition of anonymity recently left England after a private law family court case over custody of her children.

This case involved some eight expert witnesses. One, a psychiatrist, provided the court with an assessment of a potential change of residence for the children without meeting the mother or the children. The mother described the family court system and the repeated use of experts as barbaric.

The day after the psychiatrist completed the report on the mother he was suspended by the GMC for a separate offence. Yet, despite the concerns over assessing people without ever actually seeing them, it seems that courts are willing to accept such reports.

The research is the first of its kind and clearly has limitations, which the report itself acknowledges. The sample size was relatively small at 126 reports and the methodology to objectively quantify quality is likely to need further refinement.

Concern

But the range and scale of the problems identified suggest that this is unlikely to be explained solely by methodological shortcomings.

Intriguingly, the research also suggests that the problems may extend well beyond psychologists. Indeed, in the course of the investigation, Channel 4 News uncovered serious areas of concern with both psychiatrists and paediatricians as well as play therapists and others providing expert services to the family courts.

"I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing," said Professor Ireland.

"After the death penalty the most draconian act that the state can do is remove a family's child." ~ Nigel Priestly, Lawyer

"I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing." ~ Prof Jane Ireland, University of Central Lancashire

More from the UK:

"LETS HEAR IT FOR THE CHILD; RESTORING THE AUTHORITY OF THE FAMILY COURT, BLUE SKIES AND SACRED COWS"
MR JUSTICE COLERIDGE  - ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN: 21^{ST ANNUAL CONFERENCE, SOUTHAMPTO}

Top judge says legal aid in family cases may disappear ~
Update The president of the family courts, Sir Nicholas Wall, has given a wide-ranging speech to Families Needs Fathers. In it he outlined his own vision for change and also sounded a warning that legal aid in family cases may soon be abolished.
Speech: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/pfd-speech-families-need-fathers-19092010.pdf

Mr Justice Coleridge: family judges should express themselves forcefully and publicly ~
Family law judges have been unusually vocal recently in sharing their ideas for family justice reform. The latest to put his case is the High Court judge Mr Justice Coleridge, in a speech entitled Lets hear it for the Child; Restoring the Authority of the Family Court, Blue Skies and Sacred Cows given at the Association of Lawyers for Children’s 21st Annual Conference last week.
The traditional role of judges is to speak out in court and stay silent outside of it. But the relatively new head of the family courts, Sir Nicolas Wall, has set a strong example of judicial outspokenness, and it appears that the other judges are following suit in the face of large cuts to the family justice budget. That being said, Mr Justice Coleridge has been a vocal advocate for family justice reform for a number of years.
Speech: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/speech-coleridge-j-assoc-lawyers-for-children.pdf

A MUST SEE~
He really needs his father video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmerFuzRNZ4
A short scene with Will Smith from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (Episode 424).
In the story Will Smith lives with his uncle and his family. In this episode his (biogical) father comes to visit after 14 years. They deside to go on a trip together for the summer but his father sneaks back before the trip to tell his brother (Will's uncle) that Will cannot go...then this comes.
It's one of the best display of acting I've ever seen and it really moved me.

Rocket Surgery? Designating Court Experts. »

Expert witnesses are routinely used in Divorce cases. Expert testimony covers a wide gamut of topics, including; Financial, such as appraisals or accounting, Counseling, regarding fault grounds o.....

Post by Children's Rights.

Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement

Post by Stop Mental Child Abuse.

Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement | Southern Poverty Law Center

Post by Children's Rights.

Putting Children First and Minimizing Conflict

Post by Children's Rights.

The Honorable Lawson E Thomas (1898-1989)

Lawson E. Thomas was an outstanding civil rights activist who worked tirelessly to make a pronounced change in Miami’s social and political environment, and who did so utilizing the law as his tool. His first major victory on behalf of a group of clients was gained in the late 1940s when he represented black parents in Broward County who successfully sued the School Board over unequal treatment of their children. At the time, the school year for black children was three months shorter than for white children, so that black children would be available to work in the bean fields.