I came accross this earlier today and I couldnt agree more, however I have a twist I'd like to add- this advice is not only for men! More and more women are finding themselves in the same position as men are.
As anyone that has spent more than 5 min on my page they will know that I have been royal ^$#!@ by our wonderful system.
In my reasearch I've come accross some sick stuff- children have no chance in this world today!
If their parents don't screw them up the system will- so my advice is don't have children until they get this nightmare under control or you will one day think back to this blog and say "Oh man she warned me- I should have listened!"
Although the original writer of the blog below talks mostly about divorce I also add child protective services to the main list to NOT HAVE CHILDREN!
With that I bring you the original article..
Advice to Young Men: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating. And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily "the divorce court leads to a jail cell," mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.
Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." The central problem is the divorce laws.
It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.
First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under "no-fault" divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.
But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.
There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.
The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand "child support" that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents - all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.
You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundred dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a "deadbeat dad" and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have "abandoned" your children and incarcerated without trial.
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage "strike:" refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.
Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization? Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.
It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage," advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. "All homosexuals are saying . . . is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly - and a denial of basic civil equality.
" We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration's government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.
Source
Original article - Political Correctness Watch
Showing posts with label child support. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child support. Show all posts
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Interesting find
CONSTITUTIONAL BUSINESS
Published By Citizens' Justice Programs
Post Office Box 90, Hull, Massachusetts 02045
Suing Your Federal Government for Civil Rights Violations
By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney
Common Law Copyright © 1994 All Rights Reserved
On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Bill Of Rights, many attorneys may not realize that these rights each contain within them an intrinsic enabling authority for the purpose of redressing violations of these rights by those federal employees entrusted to uphold and protect them.
It is worth remembering that the authors of the Bill Of Rights were heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon legal theorists such as Sir William Blackstone, who declared that there were "three absolute rights ... the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and the right of personal property. [1] Blackstone believed the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of these absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature. [2]
Blackstone's ideas became embodied in the Federalist papers, and in the writings of James Madison on property interests, which he defined in quite broad terms:
"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to every one else the like advantage ... [A] man has a property in his opinions, and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them."
"The protection of these faculties" Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10, "is the first object of government."
As Madison might have anticipated, and as modern students of law and history may realize, in the pursuit of its various other objectives, the federal government from time to time treads on these rights and "faculties" and on the natural rights of mankind whose protection is found in the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
When Congress enacted Title 42 U.S. Code §1983 and other federal civil rights laws for the redress of violations of these rights, it did not extend liability to federal officials and employees. Instead, these laws were held to apply to "state action", and the actions of county and municipal government (except when federal officials conspired with others. See Fonda v. Gray, 1983(CA 9) CAL 707 F.2d. 435.)
The dilemma on how to obtain compensation for victims of "constitutional torts" by federal actors remained essentially unresolved until the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Bivens has had more impact on the accountability of federal government officials than perhaps any other decision in the history of American law. The central issue in Bivens was whether the Fourth Amendment of the Federal constitution created an implied right of action. This was decided affirmatively in a claim for damages by individuals whose home was searched unreasonably (and hence unconstitutionally) by federal narcotic agents. Jurisdiction was not claimed under title 42 U.S. Code § 1983, which as of this writing, has not yet been held to extend liability to federal officials in most circumstances. Instead the enabling legislation was found under Title 28 U.S. Code § 1331 which grants general jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.
Subsequent cases have held the Bivens theory of recovery applies to other claims under the various rights enumerated in the Constitution. (For decisions concerning redress of Fifth Amendment claims with Bivens actions, See Young v. Pierce, (DC Tex. 544 F.Supp. 1010) and Eight Amendment claims Mackey v. Indiana Hospital, (DC PA 562 F.Supp. 1251. [3]
Litigants who seek to bring claims against federal officials for abuses of their authority have been confused concerning the proper way to characterize their actions in the pleadings. Generally speaking, how one drafts a complaint and not what evidence is to be introduced determines whether a claim can survive as a federal cause of action. Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 834, 844 D.N.J. (1972).
For example, cases have held that if other theories of recovery are pleaded, a Bivens action must fail. This has forced attorneys to select whether they wish to use the Federal Tort Claims Act (Title 28 U.S. Code § 2679) and its strict presentment requirements and other federal law or to rely on a Bivens theory. A complaint alleging both theories are at risk of a dispositive motion. Serra v. Pichardo, 786 F.2d. 237 (6th Cir.)
Another easy mistake to make is in deciding who to name as a defendant. A lawsuit naming the FBI or United States Department of Justice per se as defendants may fail because the agencies are likely to raise certain immunity defenses which have yet to be abolished.
Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which constitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations. (Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93)
Although certain federal officials have absolute immunity from private suit, most executive officials enjoy only qualified immunity. The rationale for the distinction is that higher officials require greater liability than officials with less complex and discretionary responsibilities. Hatori v. Haya, 751 F.Supp. 1401.
Any action is considered to be against the "sovereign" and hence fails to state a claim if judgment would "interfere with public administration, or compel the United States to act in foreign policy, or enjoin foreign policy. (Sanchez Espinola v. Reagan, 770 F.2d. 202, Rochfort v. Gibbs, 696 F.Supp. 1151, WD Michigan, 1988.)
Many litigants facing civil lawsuits in which the United States is the plaintiff have erroneously sought to counterclaim against the U.S. The United States, however, to this date has not waived sovereign immunity for claims for damages, (See United States v. Northside Realty Associates, 324 F.Supp. 287, 291 (N.D. GA 1971) (dismissing a counterclaim asserted against the Attorney General where plaintiff in the suit was the United States on the ground that although the suit was initiated by the Attorney General, the real party in interest was the United States).
When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. The theory appears to be that when federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires and lose the shield of sovereign immunity. Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. The theory appears to be that when federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires and lose the shield of sovereign immunity. Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
Judge Thomas Griesa's final decision in the case allowed recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the intentional torts of invasion of privacy for the use of informants as well as for the F.B.I.'s burglaries, under a theory of trespass. Many other counts were dismissed in the case for failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
Why plaintiff's counsel selected the FTCA rather than the Bivens theory of recovery is not known.
The social consequences of having available remedies such as Bivens and the FTCA are significant. Together with the Freedom of Information Act, The Privacy Act, and the willingness of disillusioned persons within government to act as "whistleblowers," a limited deterrent effect exists to serious violations of civil rights by government.
The sensation caused by the illegal federally sponsored research experiments on mentally disabled children sequestered for nearly 40 years and revealed only recently indicates the changes in public sentiments.
Nevertheless, many courts have considered civil rights claims to be "disfavored actions."
Consider the court in Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d. 390 (7th Cir. 1971):
"The civil damages suit is worthless, especially if the victim of oppression is a social misfit or an unsavory character."
The words of Justice Louis Brandeis however, offer another view:
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Notes
1. Unfinished Business: A Civil rights Strategy For America's Third Century. Clint Bolick Pacific Research Institute For Public Policy, San Francisco, CA 1990.
2. Ibid.
3. First Amendment litigation concerning IRS tax exempt status for minority political and religious movements is also common. For an historical perspective see Income Disadvantages of Political Activities, (Colum. L. Rev. 273 (1957). Also, Clark, The Limitation On Political Activities: A Discordant Note In the Law Of Charities, 46 VA L.Rev. 439 (1960). See also, Communist Party v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 332 F.2d. 325, 329(D.C. Cir. 1964; Wolfe v. U.S. Tax Court, (1981) (D.C. Colo. 513 F.Supp. 912.
Copyright ©1994 Constitutional Business
Post Office Box 90 Hull, Massachusetts 02045
Tel. 617-925-5253 Fax 617-925-3906
All Rights Reserved
Limited License:
The right to publish this article off-line in print, or via CD-ROM, floppy diskette, tape, laser disk, or any other media, electronic or otherwise, can only be granted by the author and must be in writing. Online usage is unrestricted as long as this article, including the byline, copyright notice, publisher's address, and limited license, is published in its entirety.
Note: Hereafter, brackets signify endnotes.
The author is an attorney in private practice in Boston.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Reversing Alienation
By MITCHELL ROSEN
It is almost impossible to know if a child has truly been victimized by parental alienation syndrome (PAS). There is no test for it, no X-ray can be examined and lengthy psychological evaluations have a certain amount of subjectivity regardless of the clinician's efforts to be impartial.
Assuming a parent is able to convince the court his or her child has been manipulated into hating him or her, then what? If the child is 15, 16 or 17 years old, the chances of reversing the alienation are not great. Just hearing from a court-appointed psychologist that alienation has occurred would not take away the child's anger, mistrust and apprehension.
If the alienated parent is successful in educating the court that he or she has been unfairly separated from a child, he or she then faces the choice of either leaving the child with the parent responsible for the alienation or risking further estrangement by forcing the child to move.
Switching custody to the estranged parent, completely and suddenly, is referred to as immersion therapy. The child is immersed into the custody of the parent he or she has been taught to fear. Not only is the child in the care of a parent he or she may not have seen for years, but an essential part of the therapy is to either limit or stop any contact with the parent the child has known as the "good" parent.
For immersion therapy to be successful, the alienating parent must either be denied any contact or have all interactions with the child monitored and supervised so further alienation cannot take place.
A therapist skilled in working with alienated children monitors all discussions about the family. It may take months, maybe even close to a year, before the child exhales and relaxes into the care of the parent he or she used to loathe and fear.
The good news is that it is possible to reverse alienation. The child must also be given individual therapy to sort through the myriad of feelings he or she will experience when understanding how the once-trusted parent could have violated his or her trust so completely.
Each child responds differently. Some, especially younger children (younger than 10), may be able to adapt fairly quickly. Other children may need an inordinate amount of reassurance, patience and stability, with no outbursts of parental anger. Rages from the formerly estranged parent will only reinforce the notion that the child should fear the parent, that he or she really is emotionally out of control. The parent should remember this is a time when the child needs stability and consistency above all else.
No therapist who makes a recommendation for immersion therapy does so easily. The consequences are grave and the risks considerable. The only thing that could be worse would be to leave an innocent child with a parent so emotionally ill that the child will learn most of life's lessons backward.
Mitchell Rosen, M.A., is a licensed marriage and family therapist with practices in Corona and Temecula. Contact him at family@PE.com
It is almost impossible to know if a child has truly been victimized by parental alienation syndrome (PAS). There is no test for it, no X-ray can be examined and lengthy psychological evaluations have a certain amount of subjectivity regardless of the clinician's efforts to be impartial.
Assuming a parent is able to convince the court his or her child has been manipulated into hating him or her, then what? If the child is 15, 16 or 17 years old, the chances of reversing the alienation are not great. Just hearing from a court-appointed psychologist that alienation has occurred would not take away the child's anger, mistrust and apprehension.
If the alienated parent is successful in educating the court that he or she has been unfairly separated from a child, he or she then faces the choice of either leaving the child with the parent responsible for the alienation or risking further estrangement by forcing the child to move.
Switching custody to the estranged parent, completely and suddenly, is referred to as immersion therapy. The child is immersed into the custody of the parent he or she has been taught to fear. Not only is the child in the care of a parent he or she may not have seen for years, but an essential part of the therapy is to either limit or stop any contact with the parent the child has known as the "good" parent.
For immersion therapy to be successful, the alienating parent must either be denied any contact or have all interactions with the child monitored and supervised so further alienation cannot take place.
A therapist skilled in working with alienated children monitors all discussions about the family. It may take months, maybe even close to a year, before the child exhales and relaxes into the care of the parent he or she used to loathe and fear.
The good news is that it is possible to reverse alienation. The child must also be given individual therapy to sort through the myriad of feelings he or she will experience when understanding how the once-trusted parent could have violated his or her trust so completely.
Each child responds differently. Some, especially younger children (younger than 10), may be able to adapt fairly quickly. Other children may need an inordinate amount of reassurance, patience and stability, with no outbursts of parental anger. Rages from the formerly estranged parent will only reinforce the notion that the child should fear the parent, that he or she really is emotionally out of control. The parent should remember this is a time when the child needs stability and consistency above all else.
No therapist who makes a recommendation for immersion therapy does so easily. The consequences are grave and the risks considerable. The only thing that could be worse would be to leave an innocent child with a parent so emotionally ill that the child will learn most of life's lessons backward.
Mitchell Rosen, M.A., is a licensed marriage and family therapist with practices in Corona and Temecula. Contact him at family@PE.com
Monday, November 5, 2007
BY MARTHA NEIL
Although this article is gender specific, we all know the problem is no longer a gender problem and women get screwed by this same system daily!
I can vouch for that personally- my children are being abused at the hands of our wonderful system and they have made it so that I am "LEGALLY" KEPT FROM THEM!
Must be great to live with an alleged child pornography photographer that shares the same last name as your boss who by the way happens to be married to a supreme court judge! Ask my estranged husband he has first hand knowlege of how great that must be!
God I hate them all and wish for them what they have given to me and my children, nothing more, nothing less, just equal.
Part 1 of 5
BY MARTHA NEIL
More than half of Americans are angry and disappointed with thenation's judiciary, a new survey done for the ABA Journal e Report shows.A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that"judicial activism" has reached the crisis stage, and that judges whoignore voters' values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are "arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable."
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School By Geraldine Hawkins March 7, 2003 The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28. She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit talks to members of Harvard Law School's Fed-eralist Society. Jones said that the question of what is mor-ally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. "The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students. "The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature . dictated by God himself . is binding . in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority . from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones. She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance. "This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots. "The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. ,............." incomplete"
7 million Americans in justice systemOne in every 32 U.S. adults behind bars, on probation or on parole in 2005
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:13 a.m. CT Nov 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -
A record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. More then any other developed Nation by far.
Federal Judge Resigns, Calling Judicial System Unjust
By LARRY NEUMEISTERAssociated Press WriterJune 24, 2003, 5:10 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is imprisoned.
"Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful," Judge John S. Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It is sad comment that the public is so uneducated, unconcerned and blinded to the TRUTH by the media, and that the Judiciary of our once great Nation has been allowed to sink to these depths. And while I say that the conditions that exist today can be laid at one doorstep, that of the Judiciary, I must ultimately say that the fault really lies at our feet, We the People, for it is We the People who have allowed the foxes to guard the henhouse." -- Robert H. Bork, Judge, Supreme Court Nominee & Professor of Law
AND YET IT CONTINUES UNINTERUPTED COSTING THOUSANDS OF GOOD AMERICANS THIER LIVES.
Is Our Family Court System Causing Blood in the Streets?
by Judy Parejko, M.S. © 2002 Judy Parejko
Robert Flores walked onto the campus of the University of Arizona at Tucson and opened fire on three of his female instructors, murdering them in cold blood. In his 22-page letter, discovered later by investigators, Flores sketches the story of his failed marriage, poor health and the slights he perceived from a nursing school he claimed treated male students as "tokens." In the Washington area, accused sniper, John Muhammad, targeted innocent people, shooting them down like prey. His 17-year-old accomplice, John Malvo, was also believed to have pulled the trigger. The story reveals at least three divorces — two were Muhammad's and one was Malvo's parents — as well as several child custody battles. It's not politically correct to connect the dots but it's time for someone to begin. Could it be that our family court system is causing blood in the streets? Somehow, these men came unhinged — turned into killers. Why? That's the question we all want answered. A common theme running through both cases is alienation from family. Could it be time to take a good hard look at how we handle cases in family court? Can we afford not to?
"Failed marriage" is code for "hopelessness" — the understanding that quick-and-expedient divorce is firmly in place. In fact, there's no way to stop a divorce or get help for a troubled marriage, including the anger that can be so corrosive to relationships no matter how hard someone begs for it. And "child custody" is code for the coveted spoils of divorce. The court's work is to sever family ties and the unforeseen consequences can sometimes be deadly.
A family court hearing is a grim event. While most who are forcefully divorced or shut out of their kids' lives somehow learn to cope, others begin to simmer, reaching a boiling point that can culminate in regrettable acts. Dismantling families — taking them apart and dividing up the pieces — is easier than providing needed help so that estranged spouses might restore their troubled marriages. And, by dealing with family distress in this way, we've unwittingly invited the grim reaper to play a larger role in our lives.
The carnage of family breakdown is spilling out of the courtrooms and into our daily lives. The victims are no longer simply family members — gunned down by their desperate loved ones — but increasingly include innocent bystanders. The divorce mill casts its victims aside, leaving men like Flores and Muhammad unmoored from their families and unhitched from society. Cut off, lost at sea, they send out distress signals through their aggressive acts when life starts closing in on them — but no one heeds them. And when the "system" told Muhammad — like so many other men — he could no longer be a father, even if he fought for it, battled for custody and went so far as to "steal" his kids, he snapped. The story of Muhammad's unraveling from a family man into a serial killer is not understood yet, but his story, like others, points to an alarming association between the loss of family connection and outlaw-behavior.
"Family court" is a euphemism. In reality it is an insidious monster that takes chopped-up pieces of families and packages them into neat and manageable little bundles called "custody" and "visitation." But, we reap what we sow, and blood spilled in court is leading to bloodshed in the streets.
What we have is the worst possible response to family distress. Instead of offering compassion and helping hands, family courts evict fathers from their children's lives, also cutting off contact with the ones who might — along with skilled assistance — calm such troubled men. The "medicine" for distressed relationships is available but we fail to offer it, either because we don't care enough or because we aren't ready to face the awful truth of what was created in the name of justice.
For those who face the family court system and hope for a humane response, no plea for mercy will be heard.
"One size fits all" is the current scheme called "no-fault divorce" — another euphemism, which really is code for "forced" divorce. Troubled marriages are snuffed out by officials in black robes who say they are given no other choice. This place called "court" was turned into a "Ministry of Divorce" since making "judgments" are no longer made there and divorces are "administered" as rubber-stamped foregone conclusions.
Divorce and family disputes are merely viewed as "legal" problems — business-deals brokered by the well-paid officials handling them.
No crisis-response is offered to the casualties that show up. No ambulance. No trauma team. No hospital. Only harsh and heavy-handed tactics used to finish off the job.
It's too sordid to look at things this way — that family court carnage might be responsible for the carnage on the streets — and most people will find every reason not to.
Judy Parejko is the author of Stolen Vows, The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry -
Available at http://www.stolenvows.com/.
The Three above not enough, then read on.......
All these have been traced back to the original source and verified as throughly as possible.
The tip of the Iceberg
Trevor Goddard, 36, died at home last month, in an apparent suicide by prescription-drug overdose. Goddard and his wife were going through a divorce.
Besides his role as Mic Brundy on ``JAG,'' the Australian-born actor played a pirate in Disney's ``Pirates of the Caribbean.'' A tuition fund has been established for his two sons. Donations can be sent to Laurence School 13639 Victory Blvd., Van Nuys, CA 91401-1735.
There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past several years.
Those Fathers that we know of: Alan Bates - Murdered Alan Creeton Alan Grantham - Suicide Alan Jones (U.K.) - Suicide Alex Nicholson (U.K.) - Suicide Allan Wells - Battered Husband - Divorce Suicide Andrew Pinch Andrew T. Renouf - Suicide Anthony Clemson (UK) - Suicide Anthony Tipper Antonio Merola - Shoots Father-In-Law Arthur Sampson - Murdered Aubrey Scott Brad Draper - Suicide - (In front of Planned Parenthood, Overland Park, KS) Brian Armstrong - Murdered, Jailed For Child Support, Beaten to Death in jail Brian Gorton Brian Smith - Suicide, overdose Clifford Peacock - Suicide Clive Cass (U.K.) - Suicide Christopher Mitchell Darrin White - Suicide (By hanging after being ordered to pay child support and alimony of more than twice his income -- he had just enough money left to buy a length of new rope.) David Bengert - Suicide David Clancy - Suicide David Dosdall - Suicide David Harmsworth (U.K.) - Suicide David Harris - Murdered - (Wife ran over him with her car while his daughter was in the car) David Piggott (U.K.) - Suicide Derek Atkin Derrick K. Miller Sr. - Suicide - San Diego Courthouse steps Frank Parker - Murdered by hit man Garrett Williams - Suicide Gary Ashton Goolam Hassen Graeme Lowe Graham Clay Gregory D. Seath - Suicide (This police officer shot himself in front of supermarket shoppers.) Iain Galbraith - Murdered (Scotland) J.D. Creason James Gritz - Found Shot James McKay Jason Game - Suicide Jim From Regina John Besner - John Johnson John Vincent Constable - Murdered John Rubben- Suicide Jonathan Mitchell Joshua Skerton Kelly McGinness Dr. Kent D. Leiby - Murder/Suicide Larry Cofield - Suicide Lloyd Mather Malcolm Taylor Mark Corkish (U.K.) - Suicide Mark Edward Dexel - Suicide Mark John Harrison Martin Romanchick - Suicide Marvin Davids - Suicide Michael Aston Michael Easton - Suicide Michael Horner (U.K.) - Suicide Michael Orwig - (U.S. - Oklahoma) Murdered Nigel Ryan - Suicide Peter Ayres (U.K.) - Suicide Philip Mitchell Peter Stafeeieri - Suicide Petruk - Murder - Suicide Ralph Hadley - Murder - Suicide Randy Couch - Suicide Reginald Sublet - Murder - Suicide Roger Sandsmark - Murder of Lawyer & Suicide & other attorneys who have been killed. Robert S. Flores Jr - Suicide Robert Hendry Robert McWhirter Scott Chester Stone - murder of ex-wife - suicide Sean Lyford-Smith Simon Gonzales - Murder of 3 daughters - Suicide Stephen Jackson - Suicide, overdose Stephen Paul Patience Steve Sanders - Former Oak Ridge Boy found dead, apparent Suicide Steven Cook - Suicide (After being jailed for two months for calling his three-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.) Stephen Jackson (U.K.) - Suicide Steve Sanders - Suicide Steve Willey Stuart Holloway Tony Cummings (U.K.) - Suicide Trevor Lane (U.K.) - Suicide Vincent Hand Warren Gilbert (Australia) - Suicide (Body discovered with letter of demand from the CS agency.) William Barnette - "Deadbeat Dad" sentenced to death William Pigg Edmonton Man - Found Hanging in Fire - Suicide Man Hangs Himself at concert - Suicide John Doe Szcerbakow Glenn Sacks Radio
A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.
Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade--as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II.
America is in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents.
All Americans recognize that our country is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered.
Who is committing suicide? For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group.
There are many risk factors for suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the loss of a job, and after a divorce.
For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous.
Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations, committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.
Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself.
His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father.
" We'll never know exactly why Derrick Miller took his life and if his suicide could have been prevented. What we do know is that male suicide is one of America's most serious public health issues, and it is time to address it.
http://www.glennjsacks.com/ and the list goes on & on & on & on.
ASSOCIATED PRESS 4/6
Divorced fathers snap under pressure
One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Others, in an all-too-common scenario, killed their ex-wives, their children, then themselves. Men who snap in such violent ways have few defenders. Yet fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men. "None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack." Mr. Jaks has even distributed newspaper articles to his organization's members noting the problems with child custody and child support that angered John Allen Muhammad, accused of being the Washington-area sniper, and Robert S. Flores Jr., who killed three University of Arizona nursing professors before killing himself. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Mr. Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem."
Frustrations over child support and visitation figured in several recent violent incidents across the country.
Among them: . In San Diego, a man upset by a court ruling on overdue child support fatally shot himself in January on the courthouse steps. Witnesses said Derrick K. Miller Sr., 43, who was carrying court documents, told a guard, "You did this to me," before killing himself. . In Anchorage, Alaska Jed Magby, 43, set his Mercedes afire in October outside the offices of the state's Child Support Enforcement Division, apparently because of claims that he owed $55,000 for out-of-state child support orders. He faces charges of arson and criminal mischief. . In Erie, Pa., Stephen Trieber, 33, was sentenced to death in October for killing his 2-year-old daughter by setting his house on fire in order to get out of paying $250 a month in child support. . In February, James D. Smallwood Jr. killed his three children, who lived with his estranged wife in Throckmorton, Texas, but were visiting him for one night. Smallwood drove back to Throckmorton with the dead children in his car, then killed himself when he heard sirens approaching. A judge ruled earlier that Smallwood, who had been accused of making threats, could have the children on "quasi-supervised" visitations. Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California-Riverside, has conducted studies concluding suicide rates among divorced men are much higher than for divorced women or married men. He attributes the difference to what happens in family courts. "The man loses his marriage, then he loses a second time when child custody is granted to the woman," he said.
"Unless something is done, by examining family laws and having new policies to aid men, the situation is bound to get worse."
Extrapolating from Mr. Kposowa's research, fathers' rights activist David Roberts contends that child-support orders - part of what he calls "the war on fathers" - contribute to the suicides of more than 5,000 divorced fathers each year. Outside the fathers' rights ranks, others acknowledge that divorce and custody procedures are often imperfect.
IF NOT MORE CLEARLY CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT & CORRUPT .
NO AMERICAN should be forced to go before a bias Court, Civil, Criminal or any court of corrupted law alone and without council only to be persecuted for perhaps decade's .This is not simply Un- American it is in fact In- Humane. If there is no respect for the Law in our Courts then how long can we the people deny our responsibility to act and restore that law as is our responsibility. "Declaration of Independence"
Yet, despite all the above there is no reply or action taken, by the Justice Department, The FBI. The Attorney General or the State and Local Legislators when formal complaints are filed and almost no Redress in our Courts.
No one is being held Accountable, No One. As our government shuts down and runs rough shod over it's citizens then clearly more bloodshed is to come and our Nation will cease to exist as we know it.
Continue to Ignore this and see what happens.
PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY
I can vouch for that personally- my children are being abused at the hands of our wonderful system and they have made it so that I am "LEGALLY" KEPT FROM THEM!
Must be great to live with an alleged child pornography photographer that shares the same last name as your boss who by the way happens to be married to a supreme court judge! Ask my estranged husband he has first hand knowlege of how great that must be!
God I hate them all and wish for them what they have given to me and my children, nothing more, nothing less, just equal.
Part 1 of 5
BY MARTHA NEIL
More than half of Americans are angry and disappointed with thenation's judiciary, a new survey done for the ABA Journal e Report shows.A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that"judicial activism" has reached the crisis stage, and that judges whoignore voters' values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are "arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable."
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School By Geraldine Hawkins March 7, 2003 The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28. She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit talks to members of Harvard Law School's Fed-eralist Society. Jones said that the question of what is mor-ally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. "The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students. "The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature . dictated by God himself . is binding . in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority . from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones. She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance. "This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots. "The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. ,............." incomplete"
7 million Americans in justice systemOne in every 32 U.S. adults behind bars, on probation or on parole in 2005
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:13 a.m. CT Nov 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -
A record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. More then any other developed Nation by far.
Federal Judge Resigns, Calling Judicial System Unjust
By LARRY NEUMEISTERAssociated Press WriterJune 24, 2003, 5:10 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is imprisoned.
"Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful," Judge John S. Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It is sad comment that the public is so uneducated, unconcerned and blinded to the TRUTH by the media, and that the Judiciary of our once great Nation has been allowed to sink to these depths. And while I say that the conditions that exist today can be laid at one doorstep, that of the Judiciary, I must ultimately say that the fault really lies at our feet, We the People, for it is We the People who have allowed the foxes to guard the henhouse." -- Robert H. Bork, Judge, Supreme Court Nominee & Professor of Law
AND YET IT CONTINUES UNINTERUPTED COSTING THOUSANDS OF GOOD AMERICANS THIER LIVES.
Is Our Family Court System Causing Blood in the Streets?
by Judy Parejko, M.S. © 2002 Judy Parejko
Robert Flores walked onto the campus of the University of Arizona at Tucson and opened fire on three of his female instructors, murdering them in cold blood. In his 22-page letter, discovered later by investigators, Flores sketches the story of his failed marriage, poor health and the slights he perceived from a nursing school he claimed treated male students as "tokens." In the Washington area, accused sniper, John Muhammad, targeted innocent people, shooting them down like prey. His 17-year-old accomplice, John Malvo, was also believed to have pulled the trigger. The story reveals at least three divorces — two were Muhammad's and one was Malvo's parents — as well as several child custody battles. It's not politically correct to connect the dots but it's time for someone to begin. Could it be that our family court system is causing blood in the streets? Somehow, these men came unhinged — turned into killers. Why? That's the question we all want answered. A common theme running through both cases is alienation from family. Could it be time to take a good hard look at how we handle cases in family court? Can we afford not to?
"Failed marriage" is code for "hopelessness" — the understanding that quick-and-expedient divorce is firmly in place. In fact, there's no way to stop a divorce or get help for a troubled marriage, including the anger that can be so corrosive to relationships no matter how hard someone begs for it. And "child custody" is code for the coveted spoils of divorce. The court's work is to sever family ties and the unforeseen consequences can sometimes be deadly.
A family court hearing is a grim event. While most who are forcefully divorced or shut out of their kids' lives somehow learn to cope, others begin to simmer, reaching a boiling point that can culminate in regrettable acts. Dismantling families — taking them apart and dividing up the pieces — is easier than providing needed help so that estranged spouses might restore their troubled marriages. And, by dealing with family distress in this way, we've unwittingly invited the grim reaper to play a larger role in our lives.
The carnage of family breakdown is spilling out of the courtrooms and into our daily lives. The victims are no longer simply family members — gunned down by their desperate loved ones — but increasingly include innocent bystanders. The divorce mill casts its victims aside, leaving men like Flores and Muhammad unmoored from their families and unhitched from society. Cut off, lost at sea, they send out distress signals through their aggressive acts when life starts closing in on them — but no one heeds them. And when the "system" told Muhammad — like so many other men — he could no longer be a father, even if he fought for it, battled for custody and went so far as to "steal" his kids, he snapped. The story of Muhammad's unraveling from a family man into a serial killer is not understood yet, but his story, like others, points to an alarming association between the loss of family connection and outlaw-behavior.
"Family court" is a euphemism. In reality it is an insidious monster that takes chopped-up pieces of families and packages them into neat and manageable little bundles called "custody" and "visitation." But, we reap what we sow, and blood spilled in court is leading to bloodshed in the streets.
What we have is the worst possible response to family distress. Instead of offering compassion and helping hands, family courts evict fathers from their children's lives, also cutting off contact with the ones who might — along with skilled assistance — calm such troubled men. The "medicine" for distressed relationships is available but we fail to offer it, either because we don't care enough or because we aren't ready to face the awful truth of what was created in the name of justice.
For those who face the family court system and hope for a humane response, no plea for mercy will be heard.
"One size fits all" is the current scheme called "no-fault divorce" — another euphemism, which really is code for "forced" divorce. Troubled marriages are snuffed out by officials in black robes who say they are given no other choice. This place called "court" was turned into a "Ministry of Divorce" since making "judgments" are no longer made there and divorces are "administered" as rubber-stamped foregone conclusions.
Divorce and family disputes are merely viewed as "legal" problems — business-deals brokered by the well-paid officials handling them.
No crisis-response is offered to the casualties that show up. No ambulance. No trauma team. No hospital. Only harsh and heavy-handed tactics used to finish off the job.
It's too sordid to look at things this way — that family court carnage might be responsible for the carnage on the streets — and most people will find every reason not to.
Judy Parejko is the author of Stolen Vows, The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry -
Available at http://www.stolenvows.com/.
The Three above not enough, then read on.......
All these have been traced back to the original source and verified as throughly as possible.
The tip of the Iceberg
Trevor Goddard, 36, died at home last month, in an apparent suicide by prescription-drug overdose. Goddard and his wife were going through a divorce.
Besides his role as Mic Brundy on ``JAG,'' the Australian-born actor played a pirate in Disney's ``Pirates of the Caribbean.'' A tuition fund has been established for his two sons. Donations can be sent to Laurence School 13639 Victory Blvd., Van Nuys, CA 91401-1735.
There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past several years.
Those Fathers that we know of: Alan Bates - Murdered Alan Creeton Alan Grantham - Suicide Alan Jones (U.K.) - Suicide Alex Nicholson (U.K.) - Suicide Allan Wells - Battered Husband - Divorce Suicide Andrew Pinch Andrew T. Renouf - Suicide Anthony Clemson (UK) - Suicide Anthony Tipper Antonio Merola - Shoots Father-In-Law Arthur Sampson - Murdered Aubrey Scott Brad Draper - Suicide - (In front of Planned Parenthood, Overland Park, KS) Brian Armstrong - Murdered, Jailed For Child Support, Beaten to Death in jail Brian Gorton Brian Smith - Suicide, overdose Clifford Peacock - Suicide Clive Cass (U.K.) - Suicide Christopher Mitchell Darrin White - Suicide (By hanging after being ordered to pay child support and alimony of more than twice his income -- he had just enough money left to buy a length of new rope.) David Bengert - Suicide David Clancy - Suicide David Dosdall - Suicide David Harmsworth (U.K.) - Suicide David Harris - Murdered - (Wife ran over him with her car while his daughter was in the car) David Piggott (U.K.) - Suicide Derek Atkin Derrick K. Miller Sr. - Suicide - San Diego Courthouse steps Frank Parker - Murdered by hit man Garrett Williams - Suicide Gary Ashton Goolam Hassen Graeme Lowe Graham Clay Gregory D. Seath - Suicide (This police officer shot himself in front of supermarket shoppers.) Iain Galbraith - Murdered (Scotland) J.D. Creason James Gritz - Found Shot James McKay Jason Game - Suicide Jim From Regina John Besner - John Johnson John Vincent Constable - Murdered John Rubben- Suicide Jonathan Mitchell Joshua Skerton Kelly McGinness Dr. Kent D. Leiby - Murder/Suicide Larry Cofield - Suicide Lloyd Mather Malcolm Taylor Mark Corkish (U.K.) - Suicide Mark Edward Dexel - Suicide Mark John Harrison Martin Romanchick - Suicide Marvin Davids - Suicide Michael Aston Michael Easton - Suicide Michael Horner (U.K.) - Suicide Michael Orwig - (U.S. - Oklahoma) Murdered Nigel Ryan - Suicide Peter Ayres (U.K.) - Suicide Philip Mitchell Peter Stafeeieri - Suicide Petruk - Murder - Suicide Ralph Hadley - Murder - Suicide Randy Couch - Suicide Reginald Sublet - Murder - Suicide Roger Sandsmark - Murder of Lawyer & Suicide & other attorneys who have been killed. Robert S. Flores Jr - Suicide Robert Hendry Robert McWhirter Scott Chester Stone - murder of ex-wife - suicide Sean Lyford-Smith Simon Gonzales - Murder of 3 daughters - Suicide Stephen Jackson - Suicide, overdose Stephen Paul Patience Steve Sanders - Former Oak Ridge Boy found dead, apparent Suicide Steven Cook - Suicide (After being jailed for two months for calling his three-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.) Stephen Jackson (U.K.) - Suicide Steve Sanders - Suicide Steve Willey Stuart Holloway Tony Cummings (U.K.) - Suicide Trevor Lane (U.K.) - Suicide Vincent Hand Warren Gilbert (Australia) - Suicide (Body discovered with letter of demand from the CS agency.) William Barnette - "Deadbeat Dad" sentenced to death William Pigg Edmonton Man - Found Hanging in Fire - Suicide Man Hangs Himself at concert - Suicide John Doe Szcerbakow Glenn Sacks Radio
A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head.
Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade--as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II.
America is in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents.
All Americans recognize that our country is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered.
Who is committing suicide? For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group.
There are many risk factors for suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the loss of a job, and after a divorce.
Because our society strongly defines manhood as the ability to work and provide for one's loved ones, unemployed men often see themselves as failures and as burdens to their families.
Thus it is not surprising that while there is no difference in the suicide rate of employed and unemployed women, the suicide rate of unemployed men is twice that of employed men. It is for this reason that economic crises generally lead to male suicide epidemics.
During the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, for example, the suicide rate of male farmers tripled. A sharp increase in male suicide occurred after the destruction of Flint, Michigan's 70 year-old auto industry, as documented in the disturbing 1989 film "Roger and Me." Some suicide experts fear a rise in suicide related to our current economic downturn.
The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller.
The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.
According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children.
It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children.
Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts." According to Sociology Professor Augustine Kposow of the University of California at Riverside,
"The link between men and their children is often severed because the woman is usually awarded custody. A man may not get to see his children, even with visitation rights. As far as the man is concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead to depression and suicide."
There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years.For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous.
Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations, committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week.
Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself.
His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father.
" We'll never know exactly why Derrick Miller took his life and if his suicide could have been prevented. What we do know is that male suicide is one of America's most serious public health issues, and it is time to address it.
http://www.glennjsacks.com/ and the list goes on & on & on & on.
ASSOCIATED PRESS 4/6
Divorced fathers snap under pressure
One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Others, in an all-too-common scenario, killed their ex-wives, their children, then themselves. Men who snap in such violent ways have few defenders. Yet fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men. "None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack." Mr. Jaks has even distributed newspaper articles to his organization's members noting the problems with child custody and child support that angered John Allen Muhammad, accused of being the Washington-area sniper, and Robert S. Flores Jr., who killed three University of Arizona nursing professors before killing himself. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Mr. Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem."
Frustrations over child support and visitation figured in several recent violent incidents across the country.
Among them: . In San Diego, a man upset by a court ruling on overdue child support fatally shot himself in January on the courthouse steps. Witnesses said Derrick K. Miller Sr., 43, who was carrying court documents, told a guard, "You did this to me," before killing himself. . In Anchorage, Alaska Jed Magby, 43, set his Mercedes afire in October outside the offices of the state's Child Support Enforcement Division, apparently because of claims that he owed $55,000 for out-of-state child support orders. He faces charges of arson and criminal mischief. . In Erie, Pa., Stephen Trieber, 33, was sentenced to death in October for killing his 2-year-old daughter by setting his house on fire in order to get out of paying $250 a month in child support. . In February, James D. Smallwood Jr. killed his three children, who lived with his estranged wife in Throckmorton, Texas, but were visiting him for one night. Smallwood drove back to Throckmorton with the dead children in his car, then killed himself when he heard sirens approaching. A judge ruled earlier that Smallwood, who had been accused of making threats, could have the children on "quasi-supervised" visitations. Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California-Riverside, has conducted studies concluding suicide rates among divorced men are much higher than for divorced women or married men. He attributes the difference to what happens in family courts. "The man loses his marriage, then he loses a second time when child custody is granted to the woman," he said.
"Unless something is done, by examining family laws and having new policies to aid men, the situation is bound to get worse."
Extrapolating from Mr. Kposowa's research, fathers' rights activist David Roberts contends that child-support orders - part of what he calls "the war on fathers" - contribute to the suicides of more than 5,000 divorced fathers each year. Outside the fathers' rights ranks, others acknowledge that divorce and custody procedures are often imperfect.
IF NOT MORE CLEARLY CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT & CORRUPT .
NO AMERICAN should be forced to go before a bias Court, Civil, Criminal or any court of corrupted law alone and without council only to be persecuted for perhaps decade's .This is not simply Un- American it is in fact In- Humane. If there is no respect for the Law in our Courts then how long can we the people deny our responsibility to act and restore that law as is our responsibility. "Declaration of Independence"
Yet, despite all the above there is no reply or action taken, by the Justice Department, The FBI. The Attorney General or the State and Local Legislators when formal complaints are filed and almost no Redress in our Courts.
No one is being held Accountable, No One. As our government shuts down and runs rough shod over it's citizens then clearly more bloodshed is to come and our Nation will cease to exist as we know it.
Continue to Ignore this and see what happens.
PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Happy Birthday Wish For Hillary
Here is a chance to Let Bill and Hillary know what we think of her It Takes A Village Theory...
Dear american, In 36 years, Hillary and I have shared a lot of birthdays, and each year I'm amazed at everything she has accomplished. This is a very special year: we're celebrating Hillary's 60th, and I hope you'll join me in sending her a birthday message, sharing your wishes for her and your hopes for the coming year.
I'll make sure to share your message with Hillary. And please encourage your friends and family to send their messages as well. You can see my birthday message to Hillary and add your own here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/birthdaymessage/?sc=1421&utm_source=1421&utm_medium=e I know how happy Hillary will be to hear from you on her birthday. Thank you for helping me to make her day special. Sincerely,
Sincerely, Bill Clinton
_______________________
Thought you would appreciate this womans wish..
Hillary, I do not wish for you a happy birthday, instead, what I wish for you is the capacity to stop, sit down, for a time and THINK ABOUT what you have contributed to the life of American Familiels. Your promotion of "It takes a village to raise a child" is the MOST ANTI-FAMILY statement a person could ever make. This is obviously how you "think" and feel, so with that, may your birthdays NEVER be filled with the presence of a grandchild and may your daughter NEVER know the joy of motherhood. You see, what you have done and are doing is supporting FAMILY DESTRUCTION by Child Protective Services and the Family Courts. There's HUGE PILES of $$$$$$$$$ for doing that. The Federal Adoption Bonus Incentives PLUS all the other federal funding they "gravy boat" in for DESTROYING the Family and TAKING into custody the children from their families even WHEN there is NO ABUSE nor NEGLECT in the home. CPS and the Family Courts ARE operating ILLEGALLY. I personally HAVE PROOF of it~!!! Would YOU like to see the documents and records of that??? I will gladly show them to you~!!! CPS is committing Medicaid FRAUD and I have ADMISSION on tape recording by CPS supervisor and caseworker. I turned it in. NO-one from State office cares as that means $$$$$$$ in the state operating funds. Where do you stand in this CORRUPTION??? SHOW ME. So for this Birthday Wish -- I WISH for you some Solitude time to THINK ABOUT what you are promoting and supporting for American Families, and yet, you want to be a President???? FOR WHOM??? It certainly wouldn't be the American FAMILY as they are all being DESTROYED.
Shall we say --- NO CLINTON GRANDCHILDREN???? How about it Hillary??? Maybe we could have CPS "TAKE" your grandchildren "just because they CAN" and then "fabricate a case based on Bill's infidelity" against your family saying your daughter has been influenced by him negatively, terminate your daughter's rights to the children, and then SELL YOUR grandchildren into their arranged adoptions for the Federal Bonuses they can get for doing it, AFTER the children have spent 15 months in glorius abusive foster care where you are NOT allowed to see them = legalized black market child trafficing BY our government~!!!.
What are you willing to do to STOP the destruction of the SPINE of this country which IS the American Family?????????
(I seriously DOUBT you will get this card, but I can hope that you will and that you will stop and think about what you are doing.)
Gail Head
Paradise, TX
Dear american, In 36 years, Hillary and I have shared a lot of birthdays, and each year I'm amazed at everything she has accomplished. This is a very special year: we're celebrating Hillary's 60th, and I hope you'll join me in sending her a birthday message, sharing your wishes for her and your hopes for the coming year.
I'll make sure to share your message with Hillary. And please encourage your friends and family to send their messages as well. You can see my birthday message to Hillary and add your own here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/birthdaymessage/?sc=1421&utm_source=1421&utm_medium=e I know how happy Hillary will be to hear from you on her birthday. Thank you for helping me to make her day special. Sincerely,
Sincerely, Bill Clinton
_______________________
Thought you would appreciate this womans wish..
Hillary, I do not wish for you a happy birthday, instead, what I wish for you is the capacity to stop, sit down, for a time and THINK ABOUT what you have contributed to the life of American Familiels. Your promotion of "It takes a village to raise a child" is the MOST ANTI-FAMILY statement a person could ever make. This is obviously how you "think" and feel, so with that, may your birthdays NEVER be filled with the presence of a grandchild and may your daughter NEVER know the joy of motherhood. You see, what you have done and are doing is supporting FAMILY DESTRUCTION by Child Protective Services and the Family Courts. There's HUGE PILES of $$$$$$$$$ for doing that. The Federal Adoption Bonus Incentives PLUS all the other federal funding they "gravy boat" in for DESTROYING the Family and TAKING into custody the children from their families even WHEN there is NO ABUSE nor NEGLECT in the home. CPS and the Family Courts ARE operating ILLEGALLY. I personally HAVE PROOF of it~!!! Would YOU like to see the documents and records of that??? I will gladly show them to you~!!! CPS is committing Medicaid FRAUD and I have ADMISSION on tape recording by CPS supervisor and caseworker. I turned it in. NO-one from State office cares as that means $$$$$$$ in the state operating funds. Where do you stand in this CORRUPTION??? SHOW ME. So for this Birthday Wish -- I WISH for you some Solitude time to THINK ABOUT what you are promoting and supporting for American Families, and yet, you want to be a President???? FOR WHOM??? It certainly wouldn't be the American FAMILY as they are all being DESTROYED.
Shall we say --- NO CLINTON GRANDCHILDREN???? How about it Hillary??? Maybe we could have CPS "TAKE" your grandchildren "just because they CAN" and then "fabricate a case based on Bill's infidelity" against your family saying your daughter has been influenced by him negatively, terminate your daughter's rights to the children, and then SELL YOUR grandchildren into their arranged adoptions for the Federal Bonuses they can get for doing it, AFTER the children have spent 15 months in glorius abusive foster care where you are NOT allowed to see them = legalized black market child trafficing BY our government~!!!.
What are you willing to do to STOP the destruction of the SPINE of this country which IS the American Family?????????
(I seriously DOUBT you will get this card, but I can hope that you will and that you will stop and think about what you are doing.)
Gail Head
Paradise, TX
Friday, October 19, 2007
False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse destroy lives. These topics are to important to be falsely used and abused in Divorce litigation!
Wake up people, before we can stop or get a hold on either topic, the real abusive adults need to stop crying wolf!
Once an abusive adult manages to remove the other parent, the children take the brunt of the abusers abuse, and that goes for MALE and FEMALE abusers!
Yeah I said it- WOMEN perpetrators of Domestic Violence- Wake up- there are women abusers that are so abusive they make some men abusers look like amatures! I know of more than one personally..
It's time to stop buying into the B.S. fed to you.. by special interest groups with a personal agenda!
Below in red are my opinions on this article..
From..
David Heleniak
October 18, 2007
False domestic violence (DV) restraining orders can lead to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.
Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, in addition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restraining order also "temporarily" bars the accused abuser from seeing his or her children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent.
Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out of the house and out of the picture. A father who can't see his kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie "Daddy doesn't love you anymore. That's why he left you." Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, "Daddy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That's why he can't see you."
Often, if an accused abuser is allowed to see his or her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. As Stan Rains observed in "Supervised Visitation Center Dracula," "The demeaning of the 'visiting' parent is readily visible from the minute that a person enters the 'secured facility' with armed guards, officious case workers with their clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impression is that all of these authority figures see Daddy as a serious and dangerous threat. The only time a child sees this type of security is on TV showing prisons filled with bad people." Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the "visiting" parent is a bad person, if children decline to see their parents under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. More perversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to see the target parent, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to see the target parent.
The more time a child spends away from the alienated parent, the worse the alienation will become. As psychologist Glenn F. Cartwright remarked in his article "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome," "the old adage that time heals all wounds, such is not the case with PAS, where the passage of time worsens rather than heals the affliction. This is not to say that time is unimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all the players. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with the lost parent to continue and repair the meaningful association that may have existed since birth. This continued communication also serves as a reality check for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home. Likewise, the lost parent needs time with the child to ensure that contact is not completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroying what may be left of a normal, loving relationship....
The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child without interference. The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time to prevent 'contaminating' contact with the lost parent, depriving both of their right to spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation. Unlike cases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps in repairing a damaged relationship, in PAS time away from the lost parent furthers the goal of alienation.
The usual healing properties of time are lost when it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the lost parent by alienating the child." Along these lines, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who coined the term "Parental Alienation Syndrome" in 1985, maintained: "If there is to be any hope of their reestablishing a relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significant time with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstrate that the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous."
A parent willing to falsely accuse the other parent of domestic violence would probably be willing to poison a child against him or her. Add to this the problem that a judge willing to "err on the side of caution" by entering a DV restraining order based on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do what was necessary to prevent the development of PAS.
PAS is heart-wrenching and, tragically, common. If the DV restraining order system could be reformed so that only real victims obtained restraining orders and only real abusers were thrown out their houses, I predict that the number of PAS cases would be greatly reduced. Let's try to get there.My opinion on this subject is that - False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome and so can FALSE CHILD ABUSE accusations, used to gain the upper hand in an ugly divorce, I know this first hand!
The LIES my estranged husband told are not only causing my children to be alienated from me and the rest of thier family, but HE COST THE CITY A LAWSUIT ON MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND NEGLIEGENT MISREPRESENTATION!
My children are old enough to understand this article and to understand that the same way this works against fathers, WHEN THIER FATHER used the same tactic against me [FALSE- Child abuse-restraining Orders] he was able to KEEP ME FROM MY BABIES!]
When will they figure out that everything they've been told is A LIE!
And apparently there are some strings being pulled behind closed doors to KEEP ME OUT OF THIER LIVES IN SPITE OF THE OVER TURNED B.S. ACS "indicated" case he used to get me out of thier lives originally!
Great Job New York!
I am a survivor of D.V. with the scars and transcripts to prove it, yet I allowed him to stay in their lives WHENEVER he wanted to see them, as long as he didn't abuse me! What an azz I was, the ultimate abuse was FALSE CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS and taking my children away from me, and thanks to those women's groups I can wipe my *&% with a truly deserved, fairly obtained O.P. [apparently they see no reason to help a turly abused woman, once she's lost her children to the abuser!]
Great job "NOW" !
Original Article,
American Chronicle: False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
We The People have NO CONFIDENCE in our Judiciary!
These are not simply cases of litagents being unhappy with unfavorably decisions of the Court, it is the court, its judges and attorneys suspending the United States Constitution & its Bill of Rights. Suspending the Rules of Law entirely. It is our own Congress passing bad legislation which become Laws, some even Unconstitutional that directly aid in the Rape of the American Family. Why? As Always profit, power and Control. Perhaps our current president has expressed this most clearly in his public statements of "A New World Order"
"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." - Patrick Henry
Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its ownExistence" -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Tom C. Clark Mapp vs. Ohio
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger speaking to the American College of Trial Lawyers that, "... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession. ... the harsh truth is that ... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated." -- Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger quoted in Time,27 June 1977
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School By Geraldine Hawkins March 7, 2003 The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28. She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit talks to members of Harvard Law School's Fed-eralist Society. Jones said that the question of what is mor-ally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. "The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students. "The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature . dictated by God himself . is binding . in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority .............IN PART
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer
June 24, 2003, 5:10 PM EDT
NEW YORK -- A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is
imprisoned.
imprisoned.
"Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful," Judge John S. Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Chicago-Based IFCAA Announces National Call to Action for Prosecution of Judicial Corruption by US Attorneys and State Prosecutors
March 26, 2007-- Chicago – In the wake of the national exposure of apparent misconduct in the US Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) announces a national CALL TO ACTION for prosecution of judicial corruption by state and federal criminal prosecutors.
March 26, 2007-- Chicago – In the wake of the national exposure of apparent misconduct in the US Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) announces a national CALL TO ACTION for prosecution of judicial corruption by state and federal criminal prosecutors.
IFCAA calls for the nation to back the Congress and Senate to expose why the Executive and Judicial branches of government have not only turned a deaf ear to the lawful cries for help from the nation's victims of judicial corruption, but why they have allowed billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds to be extorted for personal financial gain in an estimated 12 billion dollar child trafficking industry in our family courts and child protective services agencies which crosses state lines, thereby engaging federal jurisdiction.
AND THERE IS SO MUCH MORE!
Monday, October 15, 2007
This is Child Protection?
Though states' "child protective services" intervene readily in family situations, using as a guideline for intervention whether a child "is at risk of maltreatment," even after 40 percent of allegations of child abuse are initially screened out, a further 66 percent of the remaining allegations of child abuse are found to be unsubstantiated. (This number includes the cases labeled on the chart as "Alternative Response Nonvictim," where no investigation of the reported child abuse was undertaken, yet it was determined that there was no abuse.)
By Gregory A. Hession, J.D.
The New American magazine, July 23, 2007http://thenewamerican.com/node/4632
Imagine your terror and panic: you are awakened by an armed SWAT team in the middle of the night, demanding to be let into your home to take your children away. The grim-faced agents show you no warrant, no court order, and no mercy. They give you no reason for their presence, other than having received an unspecified report about child abuse. They bark commands and menace you and your children with their weapons. The children are taken out of your home screaming, shoved into cars, and whisked away into the night.
This is not a Soviet-era movie script, but a reality in thousands of homes in the United States every year, courtesy of state child protective services agencies.
The least reported and understood social crisis of our time is the vast new police state run by these state social services agencies, which are generically referred to as “child protective services,” or CPS. The states have different names for them, such as Department of Social Services or Department of Children and Families, but they are all operating under a federal mandate. Whatever they are called, our next generation of children may never recover from their predatory intrusions into families.
Some may dismiss these concerns as hyperbole, but the numbers are appalling. In 2005 alone, over 3.3 million reports involving six million children were made to state child-abuse hot lines, the vast majority of which eventually proved to be untrue. Over 500,000 children currently are in foster care. Another 300,000 or so are forcibly removed from their homes by the system every year. Tens of billions of dollars are expended every year on the care of these children, and on the juvenile court systems which enable it, along with costs of therapy, drugs, lawyers, and related services.
This system is relatively new. In response to professional agitation to “do something” about the problem of child abuse, Congress set forth standards for state child protection agencies in 1974, in the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act, also called the Mondale Act for its senatorial sponsor. If a state conformed their system to the federal mandate, it could get generous reimbursement from the feds. The states immediately complied, and modern child protection was born.
The system does not work, and never has. Thirty years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and millions of ruined families later, the problem of abuse is little improved.
In almost all cases, children are traumatized by their experiences in state custody. A large number of the children taken into captivity never return — many are adopted out to other families, killed, injured, or caused permanent psychological harm. Parents are rarely helped, even when they need some improvement.
Can this happen in America? It can, and it does. What follows is a brief tour through the seamy underbelly of the CPS system. That these agencies engage in such despicable behavior is often not believed by anyone who has not been directly affected by it. CPS structures and systems resemble those used by totalitarian regimes.
The Snitch Network
The entry point of most children into the child protection system is through a government-mandated “snitch network” consisting of 50-odd professions that are required by law to report any suspected child abuse or neglect to a state “hot line.” Teachers, police, therapists, doctors, nurses, even clergy, must report to CPS, under threat of prosecution. In addition, CPS propaganda has convinced many neighbors and friends and personal enemies to make such reports.
Once a report is made, the CPS agency has to decide whether it is credible, and if so, what to do about it. Of about 3.3 million calls to state hot lines in 2005, about 40 percent were screened out before going any further. For the remaining calls, the agency had to decide whether it was an emergency, or could be administratively investigated in due course.
Why are so many reports of child abuse being generated? A large contributing factor is that the legal definitions of abuse and neglect are so elastic as to encompass virtually any parental behavior, from spanking their children to letting them eat too much “fast food.” Also, supply sometimes creates its own demand, since an army of professionals has arisen to service the industry, and must be kept well fed.
In response to child-abuse emergencies, real or imagined, the agency usually sends CPS agents and police to a home. The police pry the children’s little fingers off their mother, with everyone screaming hysterically during the “pull,” as they call it.
In other cases, children are snatched from school or from buses after school, without notice to parents frantically waiting at bus stops. Often they are taken late on a Friday afternoon, so parents cannot challenge the action in court over the weekend, and so that the children can be held incommunicado and given medications — drugged — during that time. The goal is to soften the kids up to make “disclosures” about parental abuse in order to allow CPS to get a court order for custody. Sometimes CPS agents go to court to get an order before taking the children, but when they do so, it is almost always done in secret in a closed courtroom, without the parents or attorneys present.
Unfortunately, CPS often gets it wrong both ways — genuine abuse is often missed or ignored, while most of what is reported as abuse or neglect does not rise to any reasonable level of seriousness. (See chart Top of page.)
Into the Belly of the Beast
After the snitch network does its part to get the children into the CPS pipeline, the cases either go into an elaborate administrative process, or to a so-called “shelter” court hearing, held within a few days in order to determine whether the removal of the children from the home was proper. At that court hearing, usually conducted in secret without the press or public allowed, the court will appoint separate lawyers for the mother, the father, and the children. Many of these hearings are conducted so quickly that parents do not have time to prepare a defense, and the lawyers often cut corners by telling their clients to just agree to keep the children in custody until a trial, which could be a year or more away. Only later do the parents find out that they had agreed that their children needed state protection and had waived any possibility of getting them back quickly, or even at all.
The cases that do not go to court are shunted into a surreal, nightmarish administrative system, and the children are often allowed to stay at home or with relatives while the bureaucrats dither.
A social worker will eventually make up a document called a “case plan” or “service plan,” in which the alleged failings of the parents are summarized. The case plan includes a set of tasks and social services intended to “fix” the parent, much like one might repair an appliance. In order to get the children back home if they were taken, or to foreshorten an administrative case, the parents must do all the activities mandated on the plan, such as going to parenting classes, meeting with a social worker, going to substance-abuse treatment, or getting psychological evaluations.
Social workers, often severely maladjusted and working out their own tortured past vicariously through their clients, frequently treat the parents with whom they work as property, ordering them around at whim. They set up services to be done during work hours, causing people to lose jobs and placing the family in financial distress. They can order that a man suspected of spanking his children must leave the home, putting additional emotional and financial burdens on a family.
As with most government programs, there are unintended consequences that no one considered when putting the scheme together. Since social workers are so easily duped, divorcing spouses have made extensive use of CPS reports as a weapon in family court. Want to get custody fast? Just call CPS and accuse the other spouse of abuse. CPS will also do the bidding of schools that have trouble handling difficult children, and will threaten parents who do not want to drug their children with ADHD chemicals.
When children are placed in foster care, the agency usually treats them with mercenary callousness. Social workers and foster parents do things to children that if done by parents would likely have triggered removal of the child. Children are routinely kept out of school for weeks, are denied needed medical care, and are even abused physically and sexually. Children with asthma are often placed with heavy smokers, and children with speech impediments are often placed with immigrants who struggle with English. Almost all children are heavily drugged, with up to six powerful mind-bending medications, in order to ensure their docility.
Even in little ways, the system continually shows contempt for its captives. Social workers leave a home without putting the children in car seats, cancel visits with the parents if they have better things to do, or place the children in homes far from the parents in order to make it harder to have visits. The grinding banality of socialist-spawned child care is soulless, loveless, and arbitrary.
Abuse committed against a child while in foster care is supposed to be investigated by a special outside unit, similar to an internal-affairs division in a police department. However, mindful of potential lawsuits if abuse were discovered, the investigators usually don’t find any. Statistics reported to the government about abuse in foster care are low because the agency gets to do its own investigations. In my experience representing parents, most of whose children have been actually abused in foster care, the CPS usually sweeps the allegations under the rug and fails to stop the abuse.
Your Day in Court
Juvenile or family court is where the fate of millions of children is decided. Not many years ago, these courts were a sleepy sinecure for a few political hacks. Now, with the child-abuse industrial complex in overdrive feeding them, juvenile courts have come into vogue. Crowds of sad-faced parents shuffle around the court’s waiting areas, lining the halls. Lawyers, forgetting the indescribable pain that their clients are enduring, openly laugh and gossip with CPS attorneys and therapists.
At court hearings, the parents usually cannot speak, and the children’s wishes are almost never heard or considered. Hearings often last only a few minutes, or even seconds. The traditional rules of evidence and notions of due process are rarely observed in these special courts, which are neither criminal nor civil. Hearsay on top of hearsay, sometimes three or four layers deep, is often admitted into evidence, which would never be allowed in any traditional court.
The burden of proof for taking children away from parents on a temporary basis is merely to show by a “preponderance of evidence” that the child was abused, which is a weak and ill-defined standard. By contrast, the state has to prove guilt in a speeding ticket case beyond a reasonable doubt. A final termination of parental rights requires that the state prove unfitness by “clear and convincing evidence,” still well short of the quantum of proof required to prove jaywalking.
Most juvenile cases end with a judgment against the parents, allowing CPS to keep the children until they are 18, or to farm them out for adoption. The home team — that is, the CPS prosecutor and social workers — are in front of the judge every day. The process becomes a choreographed dance, like a Mozart-era minuet, with all the players moving in lockstep and the outcome often determined before the first witness is called.
By looking at the numbers, one would conclude that there is an epidemic of child abuse in America. However, the evidence shows that there is actually an epidemic of hysteria about child abuse, because most of the official complaints are either false or greatly exaggerated. It is a squalid business. Big “non-profit” companies have arisen to service the insatiable demand for warehousing children and providing therapy, education, and other services. Special needs children can sometimes fetch thousands of dollars per week for these sub-contractors from the state and the feds, which make millionaires out of the subcontractors owners and officers.
Tens of thousands of parents have their parental rights terminated every year, and their children taken for adoption to other persons or families. In 2005 alone, 67,000 children were removed for adoption. Another 110,000 were waiting for adoptive homes. Each of these children has been through a painful removal from parents, a lengthy court process, numerous foster homes, large amounts of drugs and therapy, and sometimes years of waiting.The Adoption and Safe Families Act, passed by Congress in 1997, sets out adoption quotas for the states, with money bonuses for exceeding them, and even larger bonuses for processing a larger number of “special needs” children. Thus, adoption becomes the goal for many children who should not be taken from families in the first place. For CPS, it becomes just a commercial sales transaction: meet the quota, collect the cash.
Some parents do abuse children, and states have comprehensive criminal laws to deal with those cases. Most persons would likely disagree with CPS in how it defines abuse or neglect. Families are attacked for home-schooling or spanking their children, for not overseeing all play activities, or for when a child has an accident. Sometimes a child’s illness, poverty, or parents who are going through a time of conflict will trigger CPS involvement. There is also a palpable animus against families who are religious, or who do not like state interference. Only a very small percentage of the 3.3 million reported cases annually prove to be genuine abuse, and the system does a bad job of sorting them out.
There are reasons why the system does a bad job. Colleges churn out hordes of 23-year-old social-work graduates, childless and clueless, who are sent into homes to make life-changing decisions. Their formal education is grounded in doctrinaire Marxism and feminism, and they believe in their viscera that the state should communally raise children.
Another disincentive to changing the system is the fact that social workers are given legal immunity for almost any discretionary decision no matter what harm results to the children. Social workers exercise virtually unlimited power over families, with little accountability to anyone for overreaching or even for egregious offenses.
Federal reimbursement is the locomotive that drives the child-protection business. Regardless of what families actually need, CPS determines where to place its resources based on what returns the most reimbursement. The vast percentage of federal reimbursement (90 percent) comes from taking children into custody, while only a tiny fraction (10 percent) is available to help intact families. In other words, taking children pays, helping families costs.
The game of cadging federal CPS dollars has become so intense that states often hire multi-million dollar consultants to assist them in maximizing federal reimbursement for the children they take. For instance, Massachusetts hired the now-defunct Arthur Anderson Consulting, at an estimated fee of about $8.6 million, to structure the state program to take advantage of as many federal reimbursement categories as possible.
What Can Be Done?
Is the system really as corrupt, incompetent, destructive, and ineffective as this article portrays it? No, it’s actually far worse — if you ask a parent whose children have been victimized by it! The public perception is that CPS is doing a tough job, and standing against child abuse. However, any family caught in its web would testify to a completely different reality. When I take on a new case and forewarn a family about CPS dirty tricks, they usually think I am exaggerating. Surely it can’t be that bad. However, after the first court hearing, or if their children are removed, those families uniformly confirm that I didn’t tell them the half of it.
What should be done to address the problem of child abuse and the problem of abuse by the system of parents and children? It won’t be easy because CPS policies and actions are based on a deeply flawed world view. Moreover, the agencies are run by inept and agenda-driven managers and social workers, and are enabled by a dysfunctional legal system.Real reform would cut at the very heart of the premise of child protection — that the state is a better parent, a legal doctrine called parens patriae in Latin. Some fixes are obvious — end federal standards for and funding of state child protection agencies, set objective standards for child abuse, require traditional due process in juvenile courts that are open to the public, and eliminate immunity for social-worker malfeasance.
Millions of children are imperiled by this imperious, abusive CPS system, which works quietly without much public scrutiny. Change will likely come only when its cruelties have been exposed, and the public reaffirms that raising children is the responsibility of families, not the state.
Posted by -
Robert Littlejohn
National Co-Director
United Family Rights Association
Thursday, October 11, 2007
America held hostage by the Judicial System
If a top lawyer says the system is broken and needs to be fixed. That says it all. Dr. Richard Cordero is part of a growing number of Americans fed up with the way our American Judicial System is operating and is taking action to reform it.
Please see - The Stark Raving Viking
For full story and U-Tube Video on this subject
Please see - The Stark Raving Viking
For full story and U-Tube Video on this subject
Friday, October 5, 2007
TOO MANY KANSAS KIDS ARE UNDER STATE CONTROL
This effects us all, a must read-
BY RICHARD HARRIS:
Columnist Mark McCormick reported that there's a shortage of juvenile correction officers ("Do juvenile offenders get enough help?" Sept. 30 Local & State). That's not the problem.
There are too many kids under state control, in systems designed to fail, produced by politicians eager to pretend to help society while actually preying upon it.
The basic problem is that Kansas is much too eager to arrest, prosecute and seize control of children. It's the same as the problem with the child protection system. Control freaks from the governor on down to the average voter have made Kansas one of the most aggressive and reckless states in the nation for intervening forcibly in the lives of young people.
Our Kansas politicians, liberal and conservative alike, acting through state government, cannot resist the temptation to exert unnecessary (and often unreasonable and destructive) control over others without real, analytical, sober regard to cost or outcomes.
The Kansas child-control industry -- juvenile "justice" and child "protection" -- has a long history of over-intervening in the lives of children, at a rate higher (often much higher) than the national average. Current data from the renowned Kids Count Data Book of the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that Kansas fairly consistently ranks among the 15 states most likely to lock kids up, and clearly above the national average for placement in foster care.
This is further fueled by an entire industry of people-controllers (tens of thousands in Kansas alone) --judges, lawyers, court service officers, law enforcement officers, social workers, psychologists, wardens, jailers, prison builders, commercial foster care operations, and entire government agencies of bureaucrats. They all feed off the poor judgment and misfortune of the least powerful among us, mostly at taxpayer expense.
The result is children going from fair to bad to worse -- often in a system of amateurish mind games and incarcerations that leave a child much worse after the horrors of reckless state intervention than before it.
The No. 1 solution is a system of performance measures, based in scientific research. These must be applied to a set of rational, explicitly defined criteria that take into account all the costs of public intervention in children's lives -- including the massive cost borne by those in whose lives the intervention happens. Then apply these rational performance measures against all the government and private players who claim to be "beneficial" in their interventions -- rewarding the constructive and terminating the destructive.
At the core of the problem is a need for all of us -- voters, reporters, editors, social workers, law enforcement officers, bureaucrats, judges, legislators, governors -- to be more intellectually honest with ourselves and one another about what is and isn't reasonable, civilized, effective and constructive.
We need to discipline ourselves before we take too much control of others and destroy what we claim to be saving: the next generation of Kansans.
For replies on this story and it's original version [which I've copied word for word]
Click here-
Kansas.com 10/04/2007 RICHARD HARRIS: TOO MANY KANSAS KIDS ARE UNDER STATE CONTROL#recent_comm#recent_comm
BY RICHARD HARRIS:
Columnist Mark McCormick reported that there's a shortage of juvenile correction officers ("Do juvenile offenders get enough help?" Sept. 30 Local & State). That's not the problem.
There are too many kids under state control, in systems designed to fail, produced by politicians eager to pretend to help society while actually preying upon it.
The basic problem is that Kansas is much too eager to arrest, prosecute and seize control of children. It's the same as the problem with the child protection system. Control freaks from the governor on down to the average voter have made Kansas one of the most aggressive and reckless states in the nation for intervening forcibly in the lives of young people.
Our Kansas politicians, liberal and conservative alike, acting through state government, cannot resist the temptation to exert unnecessary (and often unreasonable and destructive) control over others without real, analytical, sober regard to cost or outcomes.
The Kansas child-control industry -- juvenile "justice" and child "protection" -- has a long history of over-intervening in the lives of children, at a rate higher (often much higher) than the national average. Current data from the renowned Kids Count Data Book of the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that Kansas fairly consistently ranks among the 15 states most likely to lock kids up, and clearly above the national average for placement in foster care.
This is further fueled by an entire industry of people-controllers (tens of thousands in Kansas alone) --judges, lawyers, court service officers, law enforcement officers, social workers, psychologists, wardens, jailers, prison builders, commercial foster care operations, and entire government agencies of bureaucrats. They all feed off the poor judgment and misfortune of the least powerful among us, mostly at taxpayer expense.
The result is children going from fair to bad to worse -- often in a system of amateurish mind games and incarcerations that leave a child much worse after the horrors of reckless state intervention than before it.
The No. 1 solution is a system of performance measures, based in scientific research. These must be applied to a set of rational, explicitly defined criteria that take into account all the costs of public intervention in children's lives -- including the massive cost borne by those in whose lives the intervention happens. Then apply these rational performance measures against all the government and private players who claim to be "beneficial" in their interventions -- rewarding the constructive and terminating the destructive.
At the core of the problem is a need for all of us -- voters, reporters, editors, social workers, law enforcement officers, bureaucrats, judges, legislators, governors -- to be more intellectually honest with ourselves and one another about what is and isn't reasonable, civilized, effective and constructive.
We need to discipline ourselves before we take too much control of others and destroy what we claim to be saving: the next generation of Kansans.
For replies on this story and it's original version [which I've copied word for word]
Click here-
Kansas.com 10/04/2007 RICHARD HARRIS: TOO MANY KANSAS KIDS ARE UNDER STATE CONTROL#recent_comm#recent_comm
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Custody Battles A Special Kind Of HELL!
I found this amazing article this morning on custody battles..
I was not able to copy and paste [probably for reasons of "stealing" the work of the author].
I have no desire to claim anyones work as mine, proven by always adding the original link to my blogs, however this time I was not able to copy the article here.
THIS IS A MUST READ..
The original article can be found at the link below..
A few excerpts from the original blog are ..
"NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THESE ABUSIVE THINGS TO INNOCENT CHIDREN"!
The author also states..
"In a situation like divorce, you have to chose to take the high road 100% of the time. If both parents did that, things would be simple and easy. But there is often one party that refuses to behave in an acceptable manner. Sometimes one party believes their needs trump everyone else's needs. To these people I say - karma is going to get you eventually. Trust me on that. I've seen it happen".
This person's blog is a must read..here it is again..
A few thoughts of my own,
I pray my children see more and more of these articles, and figure out for themselves that they are being abused by the parent that is claiming to be "protecting them".
Once they figure it out I also pray- they come back into my life-
They need to know-
(1) I understand why they acted like they did to me.
[They had no choice]
(2) I am not angry for the things they have said or done to me.
[They had no choice]
(3) Everything that was done is already forgiven, I do love them unconditionally, and always will.
[They had no choice]
(4) There is always a place for them in my/our home and in my/our heart, and when they figure this out and want to get away from the emotional abuse they are living in, all they have to do is say so!
Allan and I are mature adults, we both understand the whys of what I have lived through for the last six years, and we both agree, when they are ready THE DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN!
My only goal in life is to have all of my babies- all five of them-at the Christmass dinner table with me before I die.
I wish they could all be at the dinner table every night with me, but that's not doable, two of them are living on their own already, and one has a wife that I adore- the other has a live in girlfriend that I would love to meet!
The offer is out there, anyone reading this that knows my children, please pass this on to them.
I do understand [THEY HAD NO CHOICE] !!
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Were all screwed- Wake up America!
I've waited with baited breath hoping one of these newspapers would pick up on my lawsuit against the city for destroying my families lives. So far Ehh nothing- There was a family court story that showed what's going on in the paper the other day; but I think they were forced to pull the story.
God forbid the public gets to see the practices destroying families by our courts.
Then this morning I read this [below] I'm so disgusted you have no idea- this crap gets printed and stories about our future generations being destroyed by this wonderful system, get protected from appearing in print were all *F%$%ED! What a shame!
This is apparently what they want you to read -
NY Woman Sues Apple For $1M Over iPhone Price Cut
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A New York woman is so angry at Apple for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she's filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.
The Queens woman claims the company violated price discrimination laws when it slashed the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone from $599 to $399 within two months of its June debut.
According to the lawsuit, the price reduction injured early purchasers because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cell phone following the price cut.
While they'll "protect" you from reading this-
MEDIA RELEASE:
CONTACT: Louise Uccio
PHONE: (917) 806-8301
FAX: (914) 965-3823
Email: HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com
CONTACT: Louise Uccio
PHONE: (917) 806-8301
FAX: (914) 965-3823
Email: HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE :
MOTHER EXONERATED:
MOTHER EXONERATED:
SUES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
September 28, 2007
New York, Ms. Louise Uccio via her civil rights attorney has filed a lawsuit in The Supreme Court in the State of New York after the devastating affect of a false 2001 “Substantiated” Child Protective Services case against her. Defendants named in the lawsuit include: The case-worker, Noreen Boffa and various “John and Jane Does” unknown officers in the Administration for Child Protective Services, as well as the City of New York.
Ms. Uccio, a loving and devoted mother, and her children’s lives have been irreversibly destroyed over the last six years. She was accused and falsely found guilty of being a drug addict who attempted suicide. Ms. Uccio is alleging that her estranged abusive husband’s relentless pursuit to destroy her for leaving the marriage was the basis of four investigations by The Administration for Children’s Services in N.Y. and Division of Youth and Family Services in N.J. In 2001; leading to this lawsuit.
Ms. Uccio has been kept from her children for years with no visitation, no phone contact, and no access to medical or school records. Her estranged husband has successfully managed to alienate the children from her and erase her from their lives. This loving mother who diligently took care of her children according to her daughters pediatric cardiologist [Dr Putman] has lost six precious years from her children’s lives, during which time two of her children have aged out of the system.
Ms. Uccio has no history of drug abuse, as proven in the original documentation that was used to over turn this case, which was available and should have cleared her from the beginning had this case ever been properly investigated.
She was falsely accused, and maliciously prosecuted while she was able to prove her innocence from the start. She feels the case was able to be substantiated as a combined result of her civility, and respect for "authority", as well as her naive innocence and not knowing her constitutional rights.
Although the false “substantiated” case was over turned on July 12, 2006, Not only have Ms. Uccio and her children not been reunited there has been no visitation to date.
# # #
If you would like more information about this lawsuit or to schedule an interview with Louise Uccio please call (917) 806-8301 or contact her @ HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com
[End]
What happened to this- was it pulled the day after it was printed? Cant find it anywhere-
Mom’s Custody Petitions Were Too Late, the State Courts Said
14-Year Legal Battle Ends With Moot Issues And Ripe Sorrow
By Elizabeth Stull
Brooklyn Daily Eagle NEW YORK —
A mother's 14-year battle to keep her two children ended earlier this month when the state's highest court rejected her request for review in a one-sentence ruling.
The state Court of Appeals found that the underlying custody issues in the case of Renzulli v. McElrath were moot.
Her youngest child turns 21 next month, but the issues are still raw for the Staten Island mom who lost her kids, apparently because of an omission in her divorce papers. She still becomes teary and distraught when telling the story, as she remembers the day five years ago when she almost regained custody of her teenage daughter.
"It's kind of an anniversary," Nora Renzulli told a reporter yesterday. "Rosh Hashanah is always a hard time for me."
Renzulli secured a divorce from her absentee husband in state Supreme Court in September 1996, which identified her as the custodial parent of her two children. In January 1997, the judicial hearing officer (Royal S. Radin) issued an eight-page opinion reiterating that she had custody. But six months later, in June 1997, Renzulli signed an amended supplemental divorce judgment that had no custody provision, although the father was ordered to pay child support. Instead of filing a motion to add the crucial assignment of custody, Renzulli fired her lawyer. The children were ages 10 and 12.
Making the Case in Family CourtA year and a half later, in February 1999, the children were still living with their mother in the family home when their father, Ronald Renzulli, now living in Yardley, Pennsylvania, filed an action for custody in Staten Island family court. Nora Renzulli moved to dismiss, claiming that the case should be heard by the state Supreme Court that issued the divorce judgment.
Family Court Judge Terrence McElrath rejected her motion, because the family court has concurrent jurisdiction in custody matters. Both the state Supreme Court and the Appellate Division agreed with him.
In August 1999 Renzulli, an attorney who works for the state, tried to represent herself in family court against Norman Rosen, a veteran clubhouse attorney with a bull-dog reputation. In spite of her legal training, Renzulli felt outgunned.
Rosen drafted an order granting temporary custody to the father and argued that because the state Supreme Court did not decide the issue, the family court could make an initial custody decision without considering whether there had been any material change of circumstances.
The children, now 12 and 14, were spending the summer with their father in Pennsylvania. After they testified at a fact-finding hearing, Judge McElrath granted the father temporary custody. An outside observer later suggested that the children's father was a more lenient parent than their mother. The appellate court denied a stay and the children remained in Pennsylvania where, Renzulli claims, their father was poisoning them against her through "parental alienation."
Although she claims she was owed several years' worth of child support by her ex-husband, Judge McElrath's order required Renzulli to pay him child support.
"McElrath ripped off Nora," said attorney Peter Lomtevas, who represents her on a financing matter related to the sale of the marital home. Lomtevas said he wished he had represented her 10 years ago. "I might have had some impact" on the custody matter, he said.
Procedural Mis-stepsRenzulli appealed to the state court, again claiming the family court did not have jurisdiction and that custody should be decided by the state Supreme Court. In June 2000, acting state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Maltese wrote that McElrath should have given her custody — but Maltese did not have the authority to revise another trial court judge's decision. The appellate court affirmed.
"Rather than dwell on the omission of the requisite form language awarding custody in the judgments, this court acknowledges the substance of the written decision of JHO Radin," Maltese wrote in June 2000. "For this court to find otherwise is to negate the reality of a prior judicial decision of this court and the history of how this family lived. There is absolutely no testimony in the record or any other evidence that the parties or the Supreme Court changed or abandoned the award of custody to the mother expressed in JHO Radin's decision."
A month later, Justice Maltese amended the original divorce judgment to show that the mother had had custody prior to Judge McElrath's ruling. (By this time Judge Radin, who originally handled the divorce, had died.) In his second ruling on the matter, Maltese suggested that the children's father intentionally avoided the state court because he knew he could not win there.
"Had the father petitioned the Supreme Court for custody this court would have dealt with this as a 'change of custody' matter, notwithstanding the lack of a decretal paragraph awarding custody in the divorce judgment. Perhaps that is why the father went to Family Court with the knowledge that the custody award was never inserted into the divorce judgment. Therefore, he would be able to convince a Family Court judge (as he did) that this was an initial application for custody. Accordingly, prospectively the standard in any application for custody in any court of competent jurisdiction should be a change of custody standard."
Maltese noted that in the 1999 Family Court proceeding, law guardian Richard Katz stated that, "Judge Radin clearly awarded custody to the mother on September 18, 1996 and reiterated this on January 31, 1997." Katz also stated that he would have "'no objection to a carefully worded nunc pro tunc [retroactive] order which indicates that Judge Radin's previously award of custody of the children,'" Maltese wrote.
In October 2000 Judge McElrath issued a final order of custody to the father. Renzulli's appeals were dismissed in August 2001 for failure to prosecute. (In other words, she failed to appear in court or answer papers; the court did not rule on the merits of the case.)
Desperate MeasuresA year later, in the summer of 2002, Renzulli's children were ages 15 and 18. She still hoped to bring her daughter home to New York for her last few years of high school. By July 2002 acting state Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine had been sent to Richmond County to work through the backlog of matrimonial cases. Renzulli had a new lawyer, Alison Aplin. But Justice Sunshine declined to give Renzulli any additional visitation with her 15-year-old daughter and put the matter over for a date in mid-September — two weeks after the school year began.
In August 2002 Renzulli received news that her ex-husband's cantankerous attorney had died. Rosen's death apparently gave Renzulli new hope. She tried to contact her own lawyer, who was away on vacation.
Frantic to bring her daughter back to New York before school began, Renzulli went to court without her lawyer on Friday, Sept. 6, 2002. A friend and colleague, who was also a lawyer, went with her. That afternoon they pleaded with a judge who was sitting in for Judge Sunshine during Rosh Hashanah.
The ex parte judge signed Renzulli's custody order and said that if the father was served by that Sunday, Sept. 8, the daughter could begin the school year at a private academy in New York on the following Monday. During her scheduled weekend visit, Renzulli brought her daughter back to Staten Island and told her that she could stay for the school year.
Six days later, on Sept. 11, 2002, the parties appeared before Justice Sunshine. He roundly rebuked Renzulli for appearing in court without her lawyer, misleading the ex parte judge and reporting the history of her court proceedings "in a manner which at the very least lacks clarity and at worst is deceptive." The judge proceeded to review the procedural history of the custody proceedings in the case, noting that he himself had denied the mother's application for custody in July 2002.
"It also appears that plaintiff with this second Order to Show Cause is trying to re-litigate the Family Court Order of nearly two years ago on constitutional grounds," Sunshine continued. "That order is the last order of custody and as such, that order is a valid order.
"Any subsequent application for this relief must be in proper form by the attorney of record and address the basis that this court would have to grant such relief based upon constitutional grounds in a post-judgment matrimonial proceeding nearly two years after the Family Court decision where the appeal to the Appellate Division had been dismissed for failure to prosecute," the judge concluded. He admonished Renzulli that she could not appeal a family court decision in the state Supreme Court.
Sunshine's scathing decision was published in the New York Law Journal later that month. Renzulli believes he intentionally blackballed her career by mentioning that she is an attorney and worked in the office for Mental Hygiene and Legal Services. She claims she was nearly fired and has been passed over for promotions. In February 2006 Renzulli went to the Richmond District Attorney, who has not responded to her complaints.
Back Where She StartedOn Sept. 11, 2007, five years to the day after the hearing before Justice Sunshine, the state Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, declined to review Renzulli's case because the underlying issues are moot. Her daughter turns 21 in October.
Renzulli's most recent attorney on the custody matter, Alison Aplin, did not return calls requesting a comment for this article. Mr. Renzulli could not be reached, either.
Although the Renzulli case was extremely unusual, family courts in New York State are known to be overcrowded and overburdened. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye has sought to consolidate the state's byzantine system of trial courts to reduce the areas of overlapping, concurrent jurisdiction.
"There should be only one court that deals with family matters, so that unscrupulous litigants can't play games and pretend that something didn't happen in one court and get a do-over in the other court," Nora Renzulli said.
Mom's Custody Petitions Were Too Late, the State Courts Said
Brooklyn Daily Eagle - Brooklyn,NY,USA... a stay and the children remained in Pennsylvania where, Renzulli claims, their father was poisoning them against her through "parental alienation. ...See all stories on this topic
Be don't worry they'll keep feeding you shit like this-
Spears Temporarily Loses Custody Of Children
LOS ANGELES -- Britney Spears has temporarily lost custody of her two sons.
Superior Court Judge Scott M. Gordon ruled that her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, will take custody of 2-year-old Sean Preston and 1-year-old Jayden James.
Wednesday "until further order of the court."
Last month, Gordon ordered Spears to undergo random drug and alcohol testing twice a week, after saying that she engaged in "habitual, frequent and continuous use of controlled substances and alcohol."
The judge also has ordered both Spears and Federline to refrain from drinking and using drugs around their two young sons.
They're also forbidden from drinking or doing drugs 12 hours before either one cares for the children.
Spears, 25, filed for divorce from Federline, 29, last November after two years of marriage. The divorce became finalized in July with a joint custody agreement. Federline has since been seeking greater custody of the children.
Spears Temporarily Loses Custody Of ChildrenA judge has ruled that Britney Spears' ex-husband, Kevin Federline, will take custody of 2-year-old Sean Preston and 1-year-old Jayden James.
MORE DETAILS:
http://www.wnbc.com/tu/5si22roVk.html
Although in this [Britney] case I think they did the right thing [She needs to calm the hell down] most of us are being denied our civil rights without reason-
Wake up america- the family is being destroyed worse than ever and the why's and how's of it all are being carefully protected -when you find yourself in the position of feeling like your in the Twilight Zone- and you've come to understand why I have this blog-
Join us in the fight- Sign up for our class action lawsuit - get involved- and be part of the solution -
Indiana Civil Rights Council (Class-Actions!)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
