Outside the visual field of most people, a very dangerous form of cancer has been growing and is threatening to destroy the very own fabric of our democratic societies, the cancer of lack of elected official accountability. This cancer is caused by the violation of one of democracy’s most basic principles, the ability of people to vote for their elected officials. Nowhere is this cancer most evident than in the metastasis currently observed in our existing family court system, where judges regularly brag and call themselves reelected without even having to appear on the ballots.
Just because no one decides to run against a judge or any other elected official for that matter, does not automatically mean that they are actually doing a good job. As a matter of fact, this could be entirely the contrary. If not, just ask the Cuban people how many candidates have run against the Castro brothers in more than 50 years of their tyranny? As a matter of fact, the current practice of automatically reelecting government officials when there are no challengers, without having to appear on the ballots, is perhaps one of the most dangerous diseases to a democracy, for it surely breeds corruption and destruction of any democratic system that embraces this practice. If in doubt, just take a look at the state of affairs of our family court system.
We have identified two fundamental problems in our present family court system and have provided tentative solutions for them:
1. Lack of judicial accountability: in many areas of the country, especially in Florida, up to 80% of judges do not have to appear on the ballots when their term is over, so if they are doing a bad job, there is no viable way for the public to get them out. As a matter of fact, it looks like the worst a judge is, the less likely he/she will be challenged in elections.
Solution: constitutional amendment that will require all family court judges to appear on the ballots even if they have no one running against them (merit retention vote). Since judges may feel that we are targeting them, we have legislators willing to help us put an amendment that will even require all elected officials to appear on the ballots for a merit retention vote. I was told that this measure would be even easier to pass in Florida or even across the USA for we could get massive support from voters to strengthen our democracy. What elected official will argue against giving the people the power to decide if they are doing a good job or not? Only the ones that are doing a bad job, of course, so they would think twice before opposing such a measure. Accountability is essential to fixing this problem. The Pink Slip Project, at Newjudge.com, aims at this effort in Florida. Similar efforts are possible all over the USA, and around the world, if we unite to make this possible.
2. Inability to enforce judicial accountability: So, even if judges appear on the ballots, how can we make sure that we are able to vote off any judge not truly working towards the best interest of children and families?
Solution: The creation of a national organization to defend children and families in the USA. It will require presence in all states, and local branches in all judicial circuits. Its function will be to evaluate the performance of judges, and have volunteers ready to mobilize come election time to vote off any incompetent judges.
If you agree with these ideas and are willing to work towards these goals, send us a message, so we can have your name added to the Merit Retention Constitutional Amendment Coalition (MRCAC) group in Facebook, or you can provide your contact information to NewJudge1@gmail.com. United we can extirpate this cancer once and for all.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavior and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. And these children were as well-adjusted as intact family children on the same measures, said Bauserman, "probably because joint custody provides the child with an opportunity to have ongoing contact with both parents."
These findings indicate that children do not actually need to be in a joint physical custody to show better adjustment but just need to spend substantial time with both parents, especially with their fathers, said Bauserman. Also, joint custody couples reported less conflict, possibly because both parents could participate in their children's lives equally and not spend the time arguing over childcare decisions. Unfortunately a perception exists that joint custody is more harmful because it exposes children to ongoing parental conflict. In fact, the studies in this review found that sole-custody parents reported higher levels of conflict.
It is important to recognize that the results do not support joint custody in all situations. When one parent is abusive or neglectful or has a serious mental or physical health problem, sole-custody with the other parent would clearly be preferable,[/caption]
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” –Ronald Reagan