The stuff loving parents go through to be with their children ? How far do we put it in front of theses people to see,they look the other way.
sorry i haven’t perfected all this stuff yet and found the help stuff today!
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Dear Family and Friends,
First I’d like to thank all those who have kept me motivated and have encouraged me to never give up.
Thanks for all for your continued support, friendship, and love throughout the years!
For those of you that haven’t been following my family court case here is a very brief summary and update. The Supreme Court has consistently described the parenting right to be among the “oldest liberty interests” protected by the American Constitution, see i.e. Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000); Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982); Parham v J.R., 442 US 584 (1979); Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 232 (1972) and Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923). But this right is quickly eroding as part of a new world order, and it requires your protest, American style, before we lose it altogether. To avoid becoming the next victim, you need to join our cause.
Please understand that a Father has a basic desire to want to be with “his” children. And I am one of those Fathers!
In June of 2004 my son’s mom and I got divorced. I have known my son’s mom since 1992.
I have known my daughter’s mom since 1990 and we dated until 1994. In November of 2004 she contacted me and we reunited, dated, and lived together beginning in January of 2005. Our daughter was born in 2006. We got engaged in Paris in October 2007. We broke up in June 2008 and I moved out. I focused on my work, my children, and family. As a District Sales Manager for a Multi-National Company I had to travel internationally every week between Mondays and Fridays. I only had the weekend for my children.
|FATHER’S DAY CARD FROM MY DAUGHTER’S MOTHER – JUNE 19th, 2005|
As we were still friends I was able to have normal time-sharing with our daughter (by mutual agreement) during the weekends, that is until October 5th, 2008 (our daughter’s 2nd birthday).
After spending a “family” day out (Mom, Dad, my son David, and our daughter Zoraya) celebrating Zoraya’s birthday, mom tells me that “since she didn’t need ‘her’ father Zoraya doesn’t need me”. Words that I will never forget.
After Zoraya’s birthday, as promised, mom began to deny me any visit with our daughter. Mom served me with a Temporary Restraining Order on the 2nd week of October. During the DV hearing on October 27th, that mom and I attended without lawyers, mom and I admitted to Honorable Judge Cohn that “there were never any acts of domestic violence since we’ve known each other” and mom answered “no” when the Judge asked her if she felt I was a danger to her and or our daughter.
Honorable Judge Cohn denied and dismissed mom’s petition stating “No Just Cause”. The Judge never addressed how I was going to see our daughter leaving me in limbo and afraid of mom.
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
I was with my daughter on November 1st, 2008 when her mom dropped her off at the hospital to visit me. My sister met mom in the lobby and brought Zoraya to my hospital room. Also present was my mom, dad, son, his mom and step dad, and my sister’s husband.
In December of 2008 I filed my initial Petition, A Paternity Suit. I paid an Attorney a $3,000 fee/retainer. I asked for 3 things; to pay Child Support, Shared Parental Responsibility, and normal and reasonable Time-sharing.
Then from the 2nd week in November until February 18th I was able to spend a little time with my daughter at the day care that we enrolled her in since she was three months old and which was 50 yards from my parents home. I only visited my daughter at the day care center so I could avoid her mom so she wouldn’t make any further false allegations against me.
On February 8th our new Judge, Honorable Judge Dennis, ordered mom and I to Family Court Services for Alienation Intervention, Co-Parenting, Family Counseling and Time-sharing Issues.
But then on February 18th mom filed another Temporary (DV) Restraining Order with the help of her new lawyer. Mom and lawyer planned this from December 18th, 2008.
Mom fabricated and lied to Miami-Dade Police Officers on December 18th, 2008 to obtain an “information-only” police report as evidence in the upcoming Domestic Violence hearing they had planned to file. Filing false allegations on their petition and alleging an act of domestic violence that never happen but reported on an information only police report at the Miami-Dade Police Department in the Town of Miami Lakes on December 18th, 2008 is a crime according to Judge Dennis
What was their motive? Retaliation, vengeance anger and/or all of the above?? Maybe it is because on December 16th, 2008, two days before mom made false allegations to Miami-Dade Police Officers, Honorable Judge Scott Bernstein ordered mom NOT to remove our daughter from Miami-Dade County and to DNA Testing in an Emergency Hearing that my Attorney (Beatriz Cera) requested.
I could no longer see my daughter…at least temporarily. I thought.
And the Restraining Order relieved mom from having to comply with Judge Dennis’ Orders to both mom and dad to report to Family Court Services for Alienation Intervention, Co-Parenting and Time-sharing Issues Counseling.
I did not get a hearing until April 3rd on mom’s February 18th Petition for the Restraining Order. During that hearing I told Judge Brennan (former DV Judge) the same thing the mom and I told the Honorable Judge Cohn on October 27th; “that there has never been any acts of domestic violence between mom and I”. In addition I brought a witness that swore that I was not anywhere near the location listed on an “information only” police report (that mom obtained December 18, 2008) with a fabricated incident of which I had no knowledge. It was admitted as evidence by Judge Brennan.
Judge Brennan unjustifiably ordered a one-year “No Contact” Restraining Order. I complained telling Judge Brennan that “I felt that not being able to see my daughter was unfair and that it was equivalent to court-ordered child abuse by parental alienation” A prediction that has become reality.
As I was saying this Judge Brennan angrily closed the hearing and began to leave the courtroom and that is when I placed an envelope containing a Notice of Unavailability in the paternity case (a legal document) on the opposing party’s table in front of mom in the courtroom. Judge Brennan, alerted by mom’s attorney, immediately returned to the bench and called us back to our places and without even checking the envelope Judge Brennan said I violated the just-issued restraining order and ordered me to 26-week batterers’ intervention course.
One year after our first hearing before Judge Cohn I was terminated from my job due to the (1) Excessive Court Orders; I requested time-off so I could comply with the court’s orders in order to be able be with my daughter. And (2) the other reason, well lets put it this way; Do you have any idea how devastating it feels when people (mom, her lawyer, bad judge), acting under the color of law, hold your children hostage while the huge railroad train called the judicial system runs you over? Then wondering every second of the day if your child is safe? It is torture for those parents who CARE about their kids and I know MOST of you readers are caring, loving parents. I know because I have met them in the programs you shoved down my throat.
10 months had passed without seeing my daughter!
In December of 2009 Judge Dennis finally allowed me to see my daughter when she ordered “Temporary” Supervised Visitation at the day care center until I complied with her and Judge Brennan’s orders.
|“Temporary Supervised Visitation” at Zoraya’s Day Care Center Court-Ordered by Judge Maria Espinoza Dennis|
After two full days of trial in December 2009 and February 2010 the Final Judgement finally arrived on July 2010. As I petitioned, the Final Judgement basically states that I will pay child support and have Shared Parental Responsibility.
BUT…On the Time-sharing Issue Judge Dennis states in the Final Judgement’s Paragraph 31 that I would get “normal and reasonable” Time-sharing with my daughter once I complied with “all” the Honorable Court’s Orders to me to attend co-parenting, batters’ intervention, and so forth.
No problem in being with my son because his mom knows and has admitted to this Court that I am a good father, family man, and hard worker.
Please review the public court records at the Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center (33128) to see the excessive, abusive, and Unconstitutional Court Orders and the Court’s Requirements preventing me from being the involved father that I want to be, because she is part of my “life”, and therefore I have the “liberty” to be with my children and have a father-daughter relationship, and most importantly it makes her, my son/her brother, and me very “happy”.
Deprivation of rights under color of law falls under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
I AM an important part of my daughter’s life. Judges and lawyers come and go but I and all Dads are always going to be right there for their kids.
The Final Judgement clearly states that I am a “fit” parent…see for yourself. There’s is absolutely no mention whatsoever that I am or have ever been an “at-risk” Parent. There is the the mention of the false domestic violence incident and restraining order…all false as aforesaid.
And if I was an “at-risk” parent then how come my time-sharing with my son, which is liberal, unhampered and unfettered since my separation/divorce in 2002, is not and/or has never ever been interrupted or challenged? Just because because I fall into the “UN-wed biological father” classification of the state’s laws is not a good enough excuse to take away my daughter’s father.
I have begun the 3rd round of my family court case. My case number is 2008-029595 in the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
|www.quotespedia.info Images may be subject to copyright.|
I have not seen and or spoken with Zoraya since January 5th, 2013.
This is how the “system” has failed my daughter Zoraya and this is how this blog was born. There’s more to come so please stay tuned and please pray (for Zoraya’s sake) that the Courts will finally realize how the opposing party has purposefully and intentionally interfered “in reckless disregard” with a child’s relationship with her father and that the Court will make the “right and only” last decision that needs to be made in this family court case. That Zoraya can have her dad back!
KNOW THIS: Much of what I have enjoyed most in life is being threatened by reprehensible governmental actions. Those in government “elected” or appointed to represent our best interests: yours, mine, and those of all our families, are not acting within their powers to protect and preserve our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many are undeniably doing the opposite.
In pursuit of what is true, right, and just,
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty —never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.“
– Sir Winston Churchill
|FATHER’S DAY CARD FROM MY DAUGHTER’S MOTHER – JUNE 19th, 2005|
has had PTSD recognized and approved
to allow special accommodations in the courts.
Her work is phenomenal
Remain an Equal Parent to your Child!
|“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
“Es peligroso tener razón en aquellas cosas en las que los poderosos están equivocados”
Great overview by the American Psychological Association on the Congressional Briefing on parents with disabilities held in April!
Protecting the rights of parents with disabilities
APA co-hosted a congressional briefing to draw attention to the significant barriers faced by parents with disabilities.
How To Calculate Judicial Legal Malpractice Personal Injury Damages by Roxanne Grinage
As advised by lawyers, separating and/or divorcing parents often make false allegations of domestic violence (DV) in the form of a restraining order to evict an innocent parent from the home, interfere with contact with child/ren, and then file for temporary custody (virtually never temporary). False police reports are often obtained and used in DV Court…called “information only reports”, but contain a fabricated incident of DV and thus a serious crime if and when exposed.
AnonymousApril 2, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Children’s Bill of Rights
WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER
Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn’t forget — and kids shouldn’t let them — when the family is in the midst of a break-up.
You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn’t feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It’s important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.
You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can’t work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.
You’re entitled to all the feelings you’re having. Don’t be embarrassed by what you’re feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you’re allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.
You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone — either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.
You don’t belong in the middle of your parents’ break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you’re just a kid, and that you can’t handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it’s their fight, not yours.
Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you’re living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent’s side. You’ll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren’t together anymore.
You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn’t worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.
IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON’T BLAME YOURSELF.
—-Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998
“Children’s Bill of Rights” is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 – 2001. All rights reserved. “Children’s Bill of Rights” may be reproduced under the following conditions:
It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.
© 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation
AnonymousMay 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM
HOW 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?
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 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?
AnonymousMay 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Deprivation of rights under color of law falls under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C. (United States Code), Section 241 is a federal statute designed to protect citizens from conspiracy to deprive rights. This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
AnonymousMay 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Activist sometimes exhibit impatience with theory – often for good reasons. They have seen nonviolence caught in an idealogical net in which the purity of idealogy eclipsed activity and the nonviolent effort was undermined by a deflection of energy. But nonviolent theory is absolutely necessary. It introduces to the world a new strategy for resisting evil without creating new evils and becoming evil ourselves. But more important, it articulates a new way of being that yields a vision of peace more powerful than all the armies of all the nations of the world. (Peace is the Way, 2000)
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
Self-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one’s due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case’s outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly — with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain “paid” access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
WE SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR EQUAL JUSTICE
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 8:43 PM
The traditional alternatives available have been ineffective in preventing the recurrence of Parenting Time violations. Non-custodial parents therefore have turned tort theories to recover damages from the custodial parent and to accomplish uninterrupted Parenting Time. The current trend suggests that the threat of financial liability will discourage a custodial parent from interfering with Parenting Time rights.
1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial parent brought suit for damages alleging that:
“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place between the (plaintiff and child).”
Post on Gov Scott’s Facebook page and ask him to sign SB718/HB231 for Florida’s Children and Parents Or tweet him @FLGovScott #rickscott #florida #familycourtinjustice
Florida is finally starting something for our children and it’s all because of Sen. Tom Lee. He has been fighting in court with his ex-wife like most men over his rights as a father. It has now taken a person in a Legislative office to go through what many men are undertaking daily to change the way our courts see our fathers. Now, with this bill on the table our children may have a chance but, many have made the statement that this bill will be a cookie cutter approach to a long standing problem. Our children need relief and our fathers want their children. We need to stand together as a family in the fight for our children. “It takes a village to raise a child” ~ African Proverb. I beleive It takes the whole world to change our court.
#fathersday #fatherhood #family #Parenting #familylaw
AnonymousApril 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
That’s what Uncle Ben told Spiderman, Peter Parker before he died.
And it’s just so true!
While most of us does not have the great power that Spiderman, President of USA or CEO of big corporation acquired, we do have the ability to influence the life of others around us. Our children, students, clients, colleagues and people under our care.
So in situations when our decision affect the life of others, what then should be the basis for our decision? Should our consideration for that decision be based on our own interest, the benefits of the organisation or the well-being of others whose life will be implicated by that decision?
If a fair world ever exists, your decision will hardly have any impact on others around you, as they have the options to accept or ignore your decision without any consequences. Their decision to accept your action would very much depends on their values, their relationship with you and the benefits they received in accepting your action.
The world is never fair and there are always this group of people where their life is depended on others as they would suffer if they did not agreed to the action of others. They may be severely ill, physically and/or cognitively challenged.
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
Please remember, and do consider the core of human spirit.
AnonymousMay 20, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Our ability to enforce our children’s rights is being threatened. In many cases, people are being forced to use limited financial means to prove their rights are enforceable by court (including appealing incorrect decisions) before they are allowed to proceed with the facts of their cases and obtain justice for the violations of their rights.
The state of Florida has more than 15,000 foster children and its Department of Children and Families (DCF) has no place for many of them. By 2000, almost 20 percent of Florida’s foster homes were too crowded and children were often placed for long periods in “temporary” holding facilities. The DCF was also known to rent motel rooms to serve as housing for its foster children.
In August 2000, Children’s Rights-a national organization that ensures government child welfare systems follow the law-joined local Florida advocates in a federal class-action lawsuit against DCF to improve the foster system as a whole. The district court dismissed most of the claims before the case even made it to trial, because it believed that private individuals shouldn’t be able to interfere with a state system already in place. The state’s system allowed Florida’s dependency court to decide where children would be placed on an individual basis. Children’s Rights appealed the decision, but in May 2003, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that each foster child could only seek relief from the harms they are suffering through separate dependency court cases-that they couldn’t sue as a group. Children’s Rights tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, but the court refused to take the case. Florida’s broken system of foster care still remains unfixed.
In Georgia, foster children brought a class-action suit against the governor and other state entities for violating federal laws that require certain standards when administering foster care programs. The state of Georgia argued that children had no “federal right” to enforce the Adoption Assistance Act and Medical Assistance Provisions of Medicaid.
In Missouri, a trade organization for foster care agencies sued the directors of the Missouri Department of Social Services for not complying with the Child Welfare Act through refusing to adequately reimburse the costs incurred by childcare agencies in the state. The State of Missouri argued that foster care providers had no “federal right” to the payments at issue and thus could not bring their complaint into court.
Though the courts in these last two cases ruled in favor of children-and disagreed with the states-courts are increasingly recognizing these kinds of arguments.
Download a printable version of this fact sheet here.
AnonymousApril 6, 2013 at 10:52 AM
7 Steps for Managing Awful Opposing Counsel –
“Honestly, based on the dealings I’ve had so far, I dislike the other attorneys more than the opposing spouse! Why do attorneys have to make everything so personal?”
The guy who said that practices family law in Florida, and I couldn’t agree more.
You’ve had the same experience. The opposing counsel is making you miserable. You are not alone.
My friend in Florida asked, “How do you deal with attorneys like that?”
I’ll attempt to answer. However, I’ll warn you now that there isn’t a secret formula for these situations. There isn’t a perfect solution for dealing with these difficult humans.
When I’m dealing with one of these lawyers, I assume that we’re in for the long haul. These folks typically drag out every element of the case.
How to Never Let Your Clients (Or Opposing Counsel) See You Sweat
Here’s my advice:
1. Accept it. Accept that they are who they are and that you can’t change that reality.
2. Be normal. Make every effort to resolve your cases as amicably as usual. Be yourself. Don’t let their anger, hostility, and bad behavior change you. Don’t spend any special time or effort coming up with some magic plan of action because it’s not likely to work, and it only raises your clients’ expectations.
3. Explain the increased expense. Tell your clients that you’re likely to go to trial. Explain to the clients how this sort of behavior works in these cases. Explain that it drives up the costs and that they’re in for a long, expensive battle unless they want to concede now and be done by taking a grossly unfair deal. Help your clients understand that a bad deal is a choice some people prefer when compared to letting opposing counsel drag things on forever. Do a cost/benefit analysis with your clients.
4. Inoculate yourself with your clients. Tell your clients they’re going to have doubts about the quality of your representation and the fairness of the process. Help the clients understand that opposing counsel is acting in an effort to have that impact. Explain that opposing counsel’s bad behavior undermines confidence in you, and that’s the intent. Explain that it makes clients feel out of control. Predict the future for your clients—a future filled with ugly comments, unpleasant interactions, and protracted litigation. Help your clients understand that ultimately, the outcome will still be fair and reasonable.
5. Avoid emotional counterpunching. Make no effort to psych out opposing counsel. Tell your clients why you aren’t going to bother. Don’t attempt to be a bigger jerk than they’re being. Try not to engage in the crazy behavior. Moving forward with the process is the only agenda.
6. Get ready for trial. Keep moving your cases forward. Always have an event on the calendar. Assume you’re going to try these cases, and don’t get sucked into the endless insanity of unproductive settlement discussions.
7. Get it over with. Try the cases. Your clients need finality. They need it to be over. You’ve prepared them for the inevitability of a long, hard slog, and they know it ends with the judgment of the court. Push it forward and get it finished. That way, neither you nor your clients will have to deal with these difficult humans any longer than necessary.
As I said earlier, there isn’t an easy solution for these most difficult lawyers. Just do the job and accept that they make the process inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant. By pushing forward and disconnecting from the aggravating insanity, you’ll survive this case and be ready for the next one. Unfortunately, you’ll likely have another case with these same lawyers and have to deal with their negative behavior again down the road.
If knowing that you’ll have to deal with these people over and over is something you can’t tolerate, then sadly, this work may not be for you.
AnonymousApril 8, 2013 at 12:29 AM
Happy Easter 2013! He is risen! I pray that the two of you kids have a belief in a higher power. I pray that you don’t resist your higher power and you freely accept his guiding hand. We pray that you won’t try to hide behind God and Jesus as so many people do. Going to church doesn’t make you a good person or a believer. It’s like an enema, it may not help, but it couldn’t hurt.
Evil comes in many variations. One of my biggest qualms with your mother was always her teaching you that God was a punishing God. If you did something she didn’t want you to do, she would say that God would punish you or God wouldn’t like it if you don’t listen to me.
“God wouldn’t like it if you did that!” I really wanted you to know my God. My god is a forgiving and loving God. You will not perish in hell if you don’t obey him or me. It is not to say that you can act however or do whatever you want anytime you want. It is to say that your sins are forgiven without even having to ask.
We hope that you truly have The Lord in your hearts.
Enjoy your day and take time to praise him.
We love you,
AnonymousApril 8, 2013 at 12:45 AM
When it’s time to divorce, put your children first – really.
On behalf of Edwards & Associates posted in Custody on Wednesday, January 18, 2012
You’ve probably heard it before: the reminder that when it comes to divorce, it’s important to consider your children. Most people claim to want what’s best for their kids, and in their hearts, they do. But in practice, particularly during divorce proceedings, this can be frustratingly difficult.
Child custody is just one of the details you and your soon-to-be ex need to work out as you prepare for your new lives apart. Although the days when custody was automatically awarded to the mother are long behind us, mothers are still more likely to be granted primary custody, and fathers often fail to stand up for their rights.
It’s important to keep in mind that unless either of you has shown to be an unfit parent, children greatly benefit in the long term from having relatively equal time with both parents. Too often custody is used as a tool to exact revenge on a spouse, and while it may initially feel good for the parent awarded custody to hold that judgment over the other parent’s head, in the end, it’s your child who suffers most, not your spouse. At the same time, remember to stick up for yourself before assuming you won’t get as much time with the kids as your ex.
Accompanying the issue of custody is child support. In the state of Georgia, child support is usually calculated using the incomes of both parents along with the amount of time their children spend with each. But what if custody didn’t enter the equation, and the amount of money each parent had to work with was settled without that tug of war? If custody and support were determined separately, there might be less fighting over both.
Speaking of fighting, many parents believe that they’re effectively hiding their emotions about the divorce from their children. But keep in mind how perceptive kids can be without talking directly to them. They hear you on the phone, in the next room, complaining to your friends or to yourself about your ex. Divorce almost always has a long-term negative effect on children. Your job as their parent at this time is to lessen that negativity in whatever way possible. That means both you and your ex need to treat each other as respectfully as you can, and to truly put your child’s feelings ahead of your own.
The end of your marriage doesn’t have to spell the end of good times for anyone — you, your spouse or your children. But you as a parent are responsible for ensuring that the details of your divorce, whether it’s time (child custody) or money (child support), don’t get in the way of a happy childhood for your son or daughter.
AnonymousApril 12, 2013 at 12:20 AM
Dad banned from seeing child for 13 years because of malicious Mother
The Family Court has banned the father of a five-year-old girl from seeing his daughter until she turns 18 by ruling that shared care would not work.
After a long legal battle, the court ruled it would be pointless to order shared care of the girl because the mother was determined to ignore court orders and destroy the daughter’s relationship with her father.
The court said while it was not in the best interests of the child, the only solution was to ban contact between father and daughter until she turned 18.
The case has been branded by legal experts as one of the most extreme since amendments to shared care legislation in the Family Law Act were introduced by the Howard government in 2006.
Jenni Millbank, a professor of law at the University of Technology in Sydney, says the Family Court needs to consider the relationship between the child and both parents.
“The Family Court has to consider the benefit to a child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and, if they order shared parental responsibility between the parents, they must also then consider whether or not the child would benefit from so-called equal time or, if not equal time, substantial and significant time,” she said.
AnonymousApril 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM
THE CRY OF FATHER FORGOTTEN BY JUSTICE
I’m writing with the words of a father that has been bearing up for so long and might be he will die as a loser in this struggle but never give in.
My words are for all the fathers not able to manage going on in their life, because of lack of strength, money or fortune in life and not able to live and resist for years in social exclusion.
I dedicate my words to all the sons that need to have both their separate parents, close to them for growing up.
But first of all I’m writing to you… you politicians, judges, lawyers, psicologists, executives… try to put yourselves in my place, in the place of a father who loves really much his daughter but is obliged to be separate from his daughter and prevented from seeing and holding her.
What do you think can be a father’s thoughts when he’s suddenly and rudely separate from a beloved daughter, at the tender age of one and half?
Have you ever wondered about his feelings? Does he feel deep pain and sorrow?
We are fathers not supermen! We are human beings like everybody else and we can live in mental equilibrium, in social balance, in doubts and feel affection and have hope, expectations as well as qualities and faults just like you.
The Holy Bible sais : “Do to others as you would have them do to you” but not the contrary!!!
Would you like to see your little children few hours a week from now on? Or not to be allowed to see them at all suddenly, with no reasons why or demerit, with no possibility of appeal???
I please you to think about it and find a solution to put an end to this agony and not extinguish a father’s hopes!!!
AnonymousApril 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM
“CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE.”
Personally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Posting of this article is not an endorsement for, or recommendation of, Haskell Law.
AnonymousApril 21, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Many people are troubled by these cases because it appears the guilty party was rewarded and the innocent parties wronged. The initial outcomes certainly seem unfair. However, this isn’t the worst part of these decisions. Not only are the initial outcomes unfair, these decisions put the children at risk for very negative long-term consequences.
Children affected by divorce fare worse, on average, on nearly every measure of health and emotional well-being including a greater risk of academic problems, alcohol and drug use, poor social skills, depression and suicide, delinquency and incarceration, and poorer physical health and early mortality. The reason for all this has much to do with the fact that one of the two most important people in a child’s life is often relegated to the role of an infrequent visitor, as the above examples illustrate.
This problem may have far-reaching repercussions for all of us. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook school shooter, is reported to have gone downhill when divorce separated him from his father. One leading researcher calls this issue “a serious public health problem.”
These cases are based on the myth that one parent is the primary parent. Judges often decide cases this way even though there is no legal or mental health basis for it. More than three dozen studies over the past 20 years have found that when both parents are loving and competent, which is the case most of the time, a shared parenting arrangement — with joint decision making and near-equal parenting time — provide the best outcomes for their children.
This myth seems to have arisen from a legal presumption called the “approximation rule,” which was proposed more than 20 years ago and eventually rejected. Nonetheless, many lawyers, psychologists and judges still follow it because of its superficial neutrality and simplicity. Like many simplistic solutions, however, it’s simply wrong.
Besides creating bad outcomes for children, the approximation rule also encourages the very thing it originally hoped to prevent — parental conflict. This pernicious myth is so destructive that many states have now moved away from it.
In Arizona, for example, that state’s custody law previously allowed judges to consider “whether one parent, both parents or neither parent has provided primary care of the child” when making custody decisions. The Arizona legislature has repealed this language and now directs courts to maximize the parenting time of both parents whenever possible.
In Nebraska, unfortunately, sole custody is still the norm. Mothers are awarded sole physical custody in 62 percent of cases and fathers in 10 percent of cases. Joint custody is awarded in only 25 percent of Nebraska divorces.
There is no legal or medical basis for the primary parent myth. Scientific research shows that every-other-weekend parenting time arrangements are harmful to children, yet they still are ordered routinely in many cases. The Legislature should stop this public health crisis and make shared parenting the norm in Nebraska as it has become in other states.
Dr. Les Veskrna
“As my sufferings mounted I soon realized that there were two ways in which I could respond to my situation — either to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative force. I decided to follow the latter course.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Interpretations of children’s rights range from allowing children the capacity for autonomous action to the enforcement of children being physically, mentally and emotionally free from abuse, though what constitutes “abuse” is a matter of debate. Other definitions include the rights to care and nurturing. child rescue volunteers
AnonymousApril 25, 2013 at 8:35 AM
I have known David M. Inguanzo for eleven plus years. He has not only been a friend but a international travel advisor/guide, a professional law consultant and technology expert. He is a wonderful, giving, respectful, responsible parent and friend. I have had the pleasure of interacting with David around his children, family, and friends. I can’t say enough about how David is down to earth, versatile and people oriented. He makes people happy, smile and feel good about themselves. He listens and really hears what the other is saying or feeling. David is my friend and I love him. He can accomplish anything he sets his mind too. He is hard working, professional, dedicated and willing to go that extra mile to get things done the RIGHT way!
AnonymousApril 26, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Hi David! Thank you for the great blog! I know exactly what you’re going through and the pain you’re feeling. Please visit my blog at http://adrianbuckmaster.wordpress.com/category/family-courts-and-childrens-rights/
Re-united, my first unsupervised visit with my daughter, with Ava and her mum Cheryl. Spring Street, summer 2000
In spite of my best “pro se” efforts, I was only able to see my daughter twice a week, on Sunday afternoons for three hours and after school on Mondays for three hours. In addition, at Christine’s insistence, my two kids were not allowed to see each other except under supervision.
Of all the sad events contained in this story, the one that pains me the most, is the allegation that my son was also a danger to my daughter, and that he be never left alone with J. They both missed out by that act of vindictiveness.
Justice Ivy Cook noted that the supervisor, Giselle Trinidad, had issued a glowing report on my relationship with my daughter; the judge said she had never seen such a positive report, and, in spite of strenuous objections from Christine, released me from supervised visitation.
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 6:56 AM
Marriage is a contract between adults, and when it ends, the divorce matter is (and should be) just between the adults also. Yet, no parental action has a greater impact on children. than the decision to end a marriage.
Even in times of great stress, such as a divorce proceding, parents have a responsibility to conduct their legal affairs in a manner that will protect their children as much as possible from adult conflict. This will help reduce the potential long-term emotional and mental impacts of divorce.
At a minimum, children are entitled to the following Bill of Rights:
Neither parent shall deny the child reasonable use of the telephone to place and receive calls with the other parent and relatives.
Neither parent shall speak or write derogatory remarks about the other parent to the child, or engage in abusive, coarse or foul language, which can be overheard by the child whether or not the language involves the other parent.
Neither parent shall permit the children to overhear arguments, negotiations, or other substantive discussions about legal or business dealings between the parents.
Neither parent shall physically or psychologically attempt to pressure or influence the child’s personal opinion or position concerning legal proceedings between the parents.
Each parent will permit the child to display photographs of the other parent (or both parents) in the child’s room.
Neither parent shall communicate moral judgments to the child about the other parent’s choice of values, lifestyle, choice of friends, successes or failures in life (career, financial, relational) or residential choice.
The parents will acknowledge to the child that the child has two homes, although the child may spend more time at one home than the other.
The parents shall cooperate to the greatest extent practicable in sharing time with the child.
Each parent will permit the child to retain, and allow easy access to, correspondence, greeting cards, and other written materials received from the other parent.
Each parent will respect the physical integrity of items possessed by the child, which depict the other parent or remind the child of the other parent.
Neither parent will trivialize, or deny the existence of the other parent to the child.
Neither parent will interrogate the child about the other parent nor will either parent discourage comments by the child about the other parent.
Neither parent will intercept, “lose”, derail, “forget” or otherwise interfere with communications from the other parent to the child.
Neither parent will refuse to acknowledge that the child can have or should have good experiences with the other parent.
Neither parent will directly or indirectly attack or criticize to the child the extended family of the other parent, the other parent’s career, the living and travel arrangements of the other parent, or lawful activities of the other parent or associates of the other parent.
Neither parent will use the child as a “middleman” to communicate with the other parent on inappropriate topics.
Updated by: Lina Guillen, A Florida Attorney
AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 6:56 AM
Neither parent will undermine the other parent in the eyes of the child by engaging in the “circumstantial syndrome,” which is done by manipulating, changing, or rearranging facts.
Neither parent will create or exaggerate differences between the parents.
Neither parent will say and do things with an eye to gaining the child as an “ally” against the other parent.
Neither parent will encourage or instruct the child to be disobedient to the other parent, stepparents, or relatives.
Neither parent will reward the child to act negatively toward the other parent.
Neither parent will try to make the child believe he or she loves the child more than the other parent.
Neither parent will discuss child support issues with the child.
Neither parent will engage in judgmental, opinionated or negative commentary, physical inspections, or interrogations once the child arrives from his/her other home.
Neither parent will “rewrite” or “re-script” facts which the child originally knows to be different.
Neither parent will punish the child physically or threaten such punishment in order to influence the child to adopt the parent’s negative program, if any, against the other parent.
Neither parent will permit the child to be transported by a person who is intoxicated due to consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs.
Neither parent will smoke tobacco materials inside structures or vehicles occupied at the time by the child.
Each parent will permit the child to carry gifts, toys, clothing, and other items belonging to the child with him or her to the residence of the other parent or relatives to facilitate the child having with him or her objects, important to the child. The gifts, toys, clothing and other items belonging to the child referred to here mean items which are reasonable transportable and does not include pets (which the parents agree are impractical to move about).
Updated by: Lina Guillen, A Florida Attorney
I feel ya ! My “wife” filed a contempt charge against me for not picking up my son because he ad the chicken pox. When we got in from of the judge, she was so pissed about that she did not want to hear that the mother did not provide medication that he was on for 5 months while he was with me. Then she file a protection order and got it with no proof, no evidence. now I have to take off more time off work crazy! my story is here http://www.lie-cheat-steal.info
AnonymousMay 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
PRESS RELEASE ~
Contact: Teri Stoddard
Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report
WASHINGTON / May 15 – A new report by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments challenges prosecutors at the state and federal levels for unethical conduct. “Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct in Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Cases” concludes prosecutors have pursued overly zealous practices in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Such practices erode constitutional guarantees of due process of law and probable cause.
Prosecutors are ethically required to evaluate allegations and only pursue those backed by probable cause. That’s because they wield the power of the state against the modest power of individuals who may be charged. Over the past two decades, prosecutors have often abandoned that role in favor of “win at any cost,” claims the new study.
That’s particularly true when the allegations involve sexual assault or domestic violence, according to the SAVE report.
Former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman has noted, “Now people can be charged with virtually no evidence.” In the case of the Central Park Five, for example, five minors were coerced by prosecutors and police into pleading guilty to a crime they had no part in. The prosecutor obtained the confessions despite the absence of objective evidence connecting them to the crime.
The same is true in domestic violence cases.
Despite the fact that half of domestic violence is perpetrated by women, the vast majority of those arrested and charged are men. That’s because “dominant perpetrator” laws encourage the arrest of the larger, stronger partner, i.e., the man. Such gender-biased charging policies are unconstitutional, notes the SAVE report.
Prosecutor malfeasance has real-world consequences. In Virginia, 15% of sexual assault convictions were shown to be false by DNA evidence. In domestic violence cases, some 80 – 85% of allegations are ultimately recanted, but “no-drop” policies mean prosecutors often pursue them anyway.
“For the sake of our families and our system of justice, prosecutors must be held to long-established ethical standards,” says S.A.V.E. spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Probable cause and due process of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.”
S.A.V.E.’s new special report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Prosecutor-Bias-Misconduct-in-Domestic-Violence
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence and sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org.
AnonymousMay 16, 2013 at 2:29 PM
A child advocate should speak on behalf of the child in family court. I think in every family court situation the child should be granted a lawyer or mediator to make sure that the acts of manipulation and malice inflicted by some mothers and fathers be dealt with in the form of swift legal contempt of court. I see woman abuse the system of child support, visitation, and custody of helpless children for their own personal ignorant gain. A childs emotional welfare is priceless. I just don’t understand why a parent would encourage a child to believe the other parent just doesn’t care or is absent on purpose. It’s ridiculous. I would never want my child to feel anything but love love love from their father. I sure couldn’t stand him but my children loved their father. I never took our fight to court. I had an open door, phone, etc policy. Child support can’t pay for that. (never got a penny) I wonder when will woman and men get that through their selfish heads. Child support is for the necessities in a child life. It’s not a punishment. When the court awards child support it’s because the parent can afford to pay it at that time. Child support is so harmless. Missed phone calls, visitation, a blocked connection to a parent etc. It hurts the child more than the other parent. Believe that. I see examples of it everyday in my bail bond office.
By Torrie Spatcher
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM
We also have Unalienable Rights – Absolute Rights – Natural Rights
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.
By the “absolute rights” of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).
Constitutional Right to Be a Parent
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990.
“Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)
“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”
Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 7:06 PM
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
One of the most precious rights possessed by parents is the right to raise their children free of government interference. That right, “more precious than mere property rights,” is a liberty interest, protected by the substantive and procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Moreover, the fact that the custodians are grandparents rather than parents is legally insignificant, because families headed by extended family members are entitled to the same constitutional protections as those headed by parents, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) Even relatives who are licensed as foster parents enjoy the same constitutional rights as other custodial relatives. Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982).
Because of the magnitude of the liberty interests of parents and adult extended family members in the care and companionship of children, the Fourteenth Amendment protects these substantive due process liberty interests by prohibiting the government from depriving fit parents of custody of their children. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 824 (2d Cir. 1977); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1991). In the United States Supreme Court’s view, the state registers “no gains toward its stated goals [of protecting children] when it separates a fit parent from the custody of his children.” Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652.
AnonymousJune 12, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Grandparents are also entitled to procedural due process. “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed.2d 865 (1950)).
The grandchildren have a Fourth Amendment right not to be seized by the government for child protective purposes unless it has probable cause to believe that the children have been neglected. Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 1832, 146 L.Ed.2d 776 (2000). Probable cause exists only if the officials have persuasive evidence of serious ongoing abuse and reason to fear imminent recurrence. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1987).
Grandparents cannot be dismissed from the dependency case because the dependency case is the only legal way that the state can interfere with their custody. The state must prove that they are abusive or neglectful and that the children would be at risk of immediate serious harm if returned.
FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
Florida Judges & Lawyers Complaints
How to file complaints against Florida Judges and Florida lawyers?
Florida Judge Complaints
Contact the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee. To file a complaint about a judge in Florida: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Write to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
Florida Judicial Complaint Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Florida Lawyer Complaints
Florida Bar handles complaints about lawyers in Florida. To file a complaint about a lawyer in Florida: http://www.floridabar.org
Lawyer Complaint Mailing Address
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Complaints about Florida Judges and Florida Lawyers
Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint about the Florida Judge with sufficient documentation. Contact the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state supreme court. Complaints can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to Florida Bar.
Check the Florida web site http://www.floridabar.org to find the requirements for a complaint about a Florida Lawyer.
Keep up the fight, brother. I say brother with honor because we are all one family when it comes to this horrible injustice that we & our children have to endure. I have/am going thru this same situation. There have been many days that I am ready to give up but when I look at my princess that can be a possibilty. NEVER,NEVER,NEVER GIVE UP, THAT IS NOT A OPTION!!!!!!!!