WHEN are WE as AMERICANS going to STAND UP

…and no longer allow Family Courts to “Courtnap” a child for one parent;Parental Alienation - 2016

Or allow CPS to kidnap and murder our children?

Why is it so important we reform Family Law?

The Pink Slip Project - 2016

Why these problems constitute a sophisticated form of Racketeering, something a friend of mine recently named the “cartel of Family Courts”?florida-families-united-childrens-rights-florida-2017-8-1024

votefamily-us-2015112Over twenty people testified of the complete dysfunction of our family courts in Miami and all across the state of Florida:  https://vimeo.com/channels/878408.

LRSP Public Meeting Miami-Dade February 23, 2015 — from The Florida Courts 

+ More details

family-court-needs-to-change-2016

A corruption that is killing our children here and around the world:

CORRUPTION

Here in Florida, the number of children who have died under the mafia of the Family Court system is increasing at an alarming rate. Count went from 490 to 533 (+6 in a matter of days) in only a few months:

Thank you Miami Herald for standing up for our children.

We must unite to put an end to this madness.
If you are tired of seeing innocent children die under the care of the family court system, help us Raise Hell, and stand up for them.
=========================

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Broken Family Court System

Broken Fathers - 2015A Broken Family Court System:
‘What are You Prepared to do?’

Ignorance is bliss in some scenarios, and as a father having been involved in a contentious divorce and custody ordeal it was a luxury I found myself longing for at times. Facing a situation where one’s back is against the wall, in a court environment overtly hostile towards those who represent themselves, as a pro se litigant is a place parents should venture with extreme caution. In my situation it came to a point where in keeping up with my own case at times I began to become curious and observe what I knew to be odd behavior and activity within the court and its players.

Continue reading

Broward Sheriff’s Office Child Protective Investigations Section is in a state of crisis.

Contact Florida Governor Rick Scott - 2016Broward sheriff’s child protection unit now ‘a shamble,’ former employee says

Investigators say children’s safety at risk

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.Broward County is No. 1 in a category nobody wants to win, topping the state in the number of reported child abuse cases. With more than 15,000 cases a year, serious allegations are being made against the agency that handles those abuse complaints — the Broward Sheriff’s Office Child Protective Investigations Section, or CPIS, which many past and present investigators said is in a state of crisis.

“Absolutely children’s safety is at risk,”

…said one veteran investigator who recently left CPIS.

Christina Bullins, an agent for the International Union of Police Associations, which represents CPIS employees, said the union has heard complaints from about 50 investigators in the unit, starting with what she said are their staggering workloads. National standards for child protection investigators call for 12 cases at a time, but BSO records supplied to the union show that many of the BSO investigators are working double and triple that number, with three investigators working more than 40 cases each.

Continue reading

Florida Family Law Reform 2016!

causes.com/causes/409526-children-s-rights

Parental Alienation Dynamics ·Support Judge Gorcyca - Parental Alienation is Child Abuse - 2016

Let no good deed go unpunished. With good intentions Judge Gorcyca acted in the best interest of children. Now that a judge has finally listened, we must stand and rally.

Pathogenic parenting is a child protection issue NOT a ‪#‎childcustody‬issue. When addressing ‪#‎PathogenicParenting‬, mistakes can and will be made attempting to do the right thing. Mistakes can be fixed. When it comes to a parent emotionally and psychologically abusing children through ‪#‎ParentalAlienation‬ and hostile aggressive parenting, “there is no right way to do the wrong thing.”

*********************ba768-divorce18 CL: If you are a parent that has to deal with lies that have been untested, interference by the custodial parent and a full campaign of hatred from your kids and the ex, you need to speak up on behalf of this judge.

We don’t just encourage you to read these posts, we encourage action. It is only by protecting the vulnerable judges who on occasion get it right and that do punish alienation can we send a message to the entire judicial bench that we are sick of it.

Please write on behalf of this judge showing she used her judicial independence to heal this family because of the toxic brainwashing of the mother. Her conduct might not sit well with the board but her decisions were in the best interests of the children to end the parental alienation and dispense of testimony that did not make sense from the brainwashed children.

Let the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission know that you ‪#‎supportGorcyca‬.

MSC, CHIEF OF STAFF
Larry S. Royster
(517) 373-0120

MSC, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
John Nevin, Communications Director
(517) 373-0129

MJTC
Phone: (313) 875-5110
Fax: (313) 875-5154
E-mail: judicialtenure@courts.mi.gov
Parent League

Family Law Reform - 2016

Continue reading

Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts

How ‘deadbeats’ can still be good dads – The Boston Globe

ONE KIND OF FAMILY is the one in an old greeting-card picture: two parents, one or more kids, all under one roof.

But another kind of family has become more and more common over the last several decades. We tend to call it “single parenting,” but it is really better described as an unmarried mother and father living apart, their children, and the government whose laws regulate their relationship.

That set of laws is the child-support system, and it covers 17 million American children—about a quarter of them. But that system is nearly 40 years old, established during a different economy, and built on an old model where the mother was the caretaker and the father simply brought home the bacon. Today, a group of critics is saying the system needs an update, not only to be fair to adults but to avoid hurting the children whose interests it is supposed to serve.

These critics are particularly focused on the role of fathers, who make up the vast majority of noncustodial parents. Fathers are overwhelmingly the target of the current system’s narrow focus on collection and enforcement. And for middle-class and high-income men, it may make sense to require simply that they pay up or else.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Continue reading

Enough is Enough! Florida Family Law Reform Task Force Needed!!

Another dangerously flawed family law reform bill has been once again submitted in the Florida Legislature. As this flawed legislation persists, Republican Sen. Tom Lee, who has been embroiled in his own past divorce and child support battles, has now introduced Senate Bill 250. Many marginalized members of the Florida Bar are saying enough is enough — it’s time for Florida Gov. Rick Scott to do the right thing and form a neutral “Family Law Reform Task Force” to carefully study this issue and recommend fair and equitable changes to our family law statutes that, if necessary, do not unjustly harm women and children.Ocala Article Family Law Reform - 2015

The proposed Alimony/Family Law Reform bill contains as one of its greatest flaws an equal child timesharing provision, which creates a legal presumption that equal time splitting between parents occur. This legal presumption can only be overcome if the parent challenging the presumption enters into a legal fight and proves, with evidence, that it is not in the best interests of the child to have equal time with both parents.

There is no exception in the proposed statute regarding the age, physical or mental health of the child, or the physical or mental health of the parents. This will mean that unless a parent challenges the law, infants and toddlers would be exchanged between households on a nearly 50/50 basis. Alcoholic or abusive parents will be presumed to be entitled to 50/50 split timesharing with their children as well, including overnights.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading

Family Court Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

Miami-Dade County‘s Family Courthouse Report Legal Abuse Violations-Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

What Is “Legal Abuse Syndrome”?

Whatever the court setting, whether it is regarding divorce, child custody, parental support, probate matters, personal injury, property disputes, legal or medical malpractice, criminal charges, or other deeply personal issues, the frauds put forth in our courts add greatly to the trauma.

When litigants are unable to get fair resolution to their issues, when the court dysfunction further adds to the litigant’s burden, when no amount of actual case law compels an equitable outcome, litigants suffer often disabling levels of stress. When further attempts to achieve redress fail, litigants display the hallmark signs of Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS). *The concept of Legal Abuse Syndrome was brought to the attention of this writer by investigative journalist Michael Volpe, who’s completing a book on the life and suicide of ones of its victims. The book’s pre-publication title is Bullied to Death: The Chris Mackney Story.

Dr. Huffer, incidentally, invites reports of cases like this one on her website’s Contact page..

It’s Constitutional – Discussing Constitution and Family Law Reform

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Children's Rights: It's Constitutional - Discussing Constitution and Family Law Reform | Kids' Rights and Family Court | Scoop.itJustice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law,natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens,..

Prejudices & discrimination based on a person's sex, social status, gender or race too often rule in U.S. courtrooms!

Prejudices & discrimination based on a person’s sex, social status, gender or race too often rule in U.S. courtrooms!

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Interest  —  Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Some jurisdictions refer to IIED as the tort of outrage.

Rationale for classification

IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form ofassault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault, but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form.

According to the first doctrine articulated by common-law courts, a plaintiff could not recover for physical injury from fright alone absent a physical impact from an external source (“shock without impact”), even if the fright was proven to have resulted from a defendant’s negligence, with the case on point referring to the negligent operation of a railroad. Even with intentional conduct, absent material damage, claims for emotional harm were similarly barred. “Mental pain or anxiety, the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act causes that alone. Though where a material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the feelings of the party interested.” Courts had been reluctant to accept a tort for emotional harm for fear of opening a “wide door” to frivolous claims.

A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision. The idea that physical/mental shock without impact from an external source would be a bar to recovery was first questioned at the Queen’s Bench in Pugh v. London etc. Railroad Co. In the following year, the tort was first formally recognised in the case of Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, although it was referred to as “intentional infliction of mental shock”. Citing Pugh and the Irish courts as precedent, the Wilkinson court noted the willful nature of the act as a direct cause of the harm.

Elements

  1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
  2. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
  3. Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
  4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.

Intentional or reckless act

It is not necessary that an act be intentionally offensive. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient. For example, if a defendant refused to inform a plaintiff of the whereabouts of the plaintiff’s child for several years, though that defendant knew where the child was the entire time, the defendant could be held liable for IIED even though the defendant had no intent to cause distress to the plaintiff.

Extreme and outrageous conduct

The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of “outrage,” due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim “Outrageous!” in response.

Some general factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.

Causation

The actions of the defendant must have actually caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress beyond the bounds of decency. IIED can be done through speech or action; if emotional stress, must manifest physically.

Qualification

The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs must be “severe.” This standard is quantified by the intensity, duration, and any physical manifestations of the distress. A lack of productivity or a mental disorder, documented by a mental health professional, is typically required here, although acquaintances’ testimony about a change in behavior could be persuasive. Extreme sadness, anxiety, or anger in conjunction with a personal injury (though not necessarily) may also qualify for compensation.

An example of an act which might form the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress would be sending a letter to an individual falsely informing the person that a close family member had been killed in an accident.

Pleading practices

In civil procedure systems (such as in the United States) that allow plaintiffs to plead multiple alternative theories that may overlap or even contradict each other, a plaintiff will usually bring an action for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). This is just in case the plaintiff later discovers that it is impossible to prove at trial the necessary mens rea of intent; even then, the jury may still be able to rule for them on the NIED claim.

There are some reported cases in which a plaintiff will bring only a NIED claim even though a reasonable neutral observer could conclude that the defendant’s behavior was probably intentional. This is usually because the defendant may have some kind of insurance coverage (like homeowners’ insurance or automobile liability insurance). As a matter of public policy, insurers are barred from covering intentional torts like IIED, but may be liable for NIED committed by their policyholders, and therefore are targeted indirectly in this fashion as deep pockets.

First Amendment considerations

The U.S. Supreme Court case Hustler v. Falwell involved an IIED claim brought by the evangelist Jerry Falwellagainst the publisher of Hustler Magazine for a parody ad that described Falwell as having lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protected such parodies of public figures from civil liability.

See also

References

  1. ^ LeRoy Miller, Roger (2011). Business Law Today: The Essentials. United States: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 103. ISBN 1-133-19135-5.
  2. ^ Cusimano, Gregory S. “Tort of Outrage”. LexisNexis. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  3. ^ For English law, see Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas (1888) 13 AC 222 (woman barred from recovery due to shock despite suffering a miscarriage); for a similar decision in New York in the same month, see Lehman v. Brooklyn City Railroad Co., 47 Hun (N.Y.) 355 (1888).
  4. ^ Lord Wensleydale, Lynch v. Knight (1861) 9 HLC 577 at 598; 11 ER 854, where a married woman unsuccessful sought redress for “slanderous imputation of unchastity”
  5. ^ Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. 151 NY 107 (1896)
  6. ^ see Bell v. Great Northern Railway of Ireland (1895) 26 LR (Ir) 428; also citing an unreported decision inByrne v. Great Southern and Western R. Co. of Ireland
  7. ^ [1896] 2 QB 248
  8. ^ http://trucounsel.com/index.php/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress
  9. ^ Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998).
  10. ^ GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999).
  11. ^ “Emotional Distress and Defamation in Personal Injury Cases”. Slappey & Sadd. Retrieved 26 July2015.
  12. ^ Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · Wikipedia

Reform Family Law ~ Stop Hurting Parents and Children
World4Justice : Cyber Protest!

Put Family Justice and Child Welfare Reform at the top of Politicians Agenda!we the people

False Accusation Law & Legal Definition

Prosecute False allegations of DV - 2016An accusation that is contrary to fact or truth is a false accusation. To accuse means to make a charge of wrongdoing against another. Accusation can be a formal charge of criminal wrong doing, like the accusation that is presented to a court or magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime. It can also be an informal statement that a person has engaged in an illegal or immoral act.


The BEST parent is BOTH parents!! the-best-parent-is-both-parents-20151

Parents must stop making false allegations of domestic violence to derail and gain an unfair advantage in Family Court!

“The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right.”

Support the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

Add 28th Parental Rights Amendment to U.S. Constitution

Dedicated to the proposition that children are best served by having unfettered EQUAL access to BOTH parents.

Father’s Rights In Child Custody & Support Agrrement

Father's Rights In Child Custody & Support Agrrement | Kids' Rights and Family Court | Scoop.it

Longton DM works to preserve the relationship between a father and his children. Child custody and parenting times are all factors we take very seriously when negotiating your rights during a divorce. Our Michigan child custody lawyer will aggressively seek fair and impartial judgments on child custody and support arrangements.divorce process, representing dads in Brownstown, Wayne County dads divorce, Dads divorce Livingston County, Allen Park Family Law Lawyer, Woodhaven Divorce Lawyer, Wyandotte Divorce Lawyer

TALKING BACK to restraining orders

This is the first post on this blog to introduce Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), a condition proposed by marriage and family therapist Karin P. Huffer, whose books on the subject of posttraumatic stress stemming from court-mediated violations are Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome(1995) and Legal Abuse Syndrome: 8 Steps for Avoiding the Traumatic Stress Caused by the Justice System(2013).

“Anyone who has ever worked in a legal aid office or law library has met people whose lives have come unhinged after a bad contact with the legal system. The details vary—they may have lost a business or inheritance or the custody of a child—but the common theme of feeling violated by the legal system does not. Even 20 years after losing a lawsuit, some people who suffer from Legal Abuse Syndrome still carry a suitcase of old legal papers around, desperately hoping someone will help…

View original post 746 more words

Revamp Laws That Damage Families

9b7e2-we2bthe2bpeople2b-2byour2bvoice2bin2bour2bgovernment

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact0a1fa-purple2bkeyboard2Let’s Join Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!

The Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!

Alienation is a crime - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44305-world4justice-lobby-forum-justice4children

Let us make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protection

Family Court System Reform – Revamp Laws That Damage Families and Only Benefit Matrimonial Lawyers and Court “Experts” Families & Children are being devastated by family court system greed. Over 120,000 families per year are bankrupted by predatory matrimonial attorneys and the family court system through self serving laws and court rules. 05691-knowtheindustry2521

Adopt Uniform Parenting Time Guidelines
Repeal Inconsistent Rules and Presumptions – Ask the Family Court to adopt uniform rules requiring equal parenting timeff7d4-well2bbeing2bof2bchild Joint Legal Custody and Dealing with the Difficult Ex By their very nature, divorce and custody matters are generally contentious. causes.com/campaigns/44294-enact-uniform-parenting-time-guidelines-separated-parentsBut what if one of the parties is a particularly vengeful and bitter ‘ex.’ Equal Parents - 2015How does that change the nature of the game?

logo-2-20163

Stand Up For Zoraya
Bring awareness, celebrate, and support Father-Daughter Relationship Education

Celebrates the love fathers have for their daughters, inspiring them to embrace the important role they hold in their daughters’ lives and to provide the love, nurture, and emotional support that only they can give.Mother Teresa - Causes - 2015
Zoraya name - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact

The Cause “Stand Up For Zoraya” celebrates the love fathers have for their daughters, inspiring them to embrace the important role they hold in their daughters’ lives and to provide the love, nurture, and emotional support that only they can give.Stand Up For…

Get the News Media Attention on Family Law Reform

Children, Families and Society as a whole are being undermined by the effects Family Law Courts, Child ProtectionCauses - Raise your right hand and read aloud the following - 2015

Mandate 50/50 physical custody nationwide of all FIT Parents, in initial custody issues, make BOTH Parent equally responsible for raising a child. “There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families, which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood,” Obama said.

World4Justice – Lobby Forum- Justice4ChildrenCauses - World4Justice - Lobby Forum- Justice4Children - 2015.png FAMILY JUSTICE REFORMED: DEVELOPING A NEW PROCESS AND EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, THE MEDIA, AND THE POLITICIANS.
Fair4Families - 2015

The Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding upbringing, education and care of their child AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Advancing the cause of Parental Rights. Law to establish the Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding upbringing, education and care of their child AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. It does so all the while while protecting kids at risk, because it continues to…

STOP ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF FAMILY COURT JUDGES
Demanding that Family Courts fulfill public’s right to fair, efficient justice with dignity, professionalism, courtesy.

“The greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.” —Chief Justice John Marshall Should any Man or Woman be above the law? For far too long, the judicial branch of government has operated above the very laws they seek to enforce on society. They sit in judgment of citizens with no check and balances. This is clearly not…

Bring awareness to Parental Alienation in Family CourtParental Alienation is Abuse - Causes 2015 Parental Alienation deprives children of their right to be loved by and showing love for both of their parents

Emotional Abuse Warning Signs - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44302-stand-up-for-zoraya

Exposing The Methods | Brainwashing Children Isolation. The act of isolating, or the state of being isolated, insulation, separation; loneliness. Manipulation. A method of changing an individual’s attitudes or allegiances through the use of drugs, torture or psychological techniques, any form of indoctrination, alluding to the literal erasing of what is in or on one’s mind. Brain Washing…Read More

Dysfunctional Family Courts 2 - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44302-stand-up-for-zoraya

Reform Family Law ~ Stop Hurting Parents and Children
World4Justice : Cyber Protest! Put Family Justice and Child Welfare Reform at the top of Politicians Agenda! 

Demand Family Court Reform Florida - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact

“The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right.” Support the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

family court in focus - 2015

causes.com/causes/409526-children-s-rights

Add 28th Parental Rights Amendment to U.S. Constitution

28th Amendment - Causes 2015.png Dedicated to the proposition that children are best served by having unfettered EQUAL access to BOTH parents.

Alienated Parents - Call to Action - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44303-get-the-news-media-attention-on-family-law-reform

Join us in stating that children are best protected by two equal fit parents whose rights are strongly protected.

The judge incorrectly calculated my wife’s income and now I am left paying child support even though she makes much more than me. What can I do?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I Just Want To Be A Good Dad

shared parenting· Supporters of South Dakota Shared Parenting  link ·

A group of fathers in New Jersey have banded together to bring a class action lawsuit against five family court judges. They allege their constitutional rights…
LAWDIVA.WORDPRESS.COM
Siding with Democratic legislators, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) vetoed alimony reform legislation that Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature had passed by a
EXAMINER.COM
Please meet… Chris Colbert Regional Director (Southeast) Chris is the proud father of a son and a daughter. Chris worked hard to achieve 50-50 legal and physical custody of his children. He is a fifth grade teacher in the State of Florida and in his spare time he enjoys golfing, grilling, and outdoor activities. Chris graduated from Union College with a BA in History. He continued his education at the National University of Ireland, Galway and has an MA in Irish Studies. He became actively involved with The Fathers’ Rights Movement while battling for his children in 2014-2015. In June 2015, Chris became an editor for the Florida Chapter’s Facebook page. A few months later, he was promoted to Central page and then was asked to be a member of the Board of Directors. He now uses his energies to help other parents have an equal say in raising their children. Chris is currently the Regional Director for the Southeast. He wants every father out there to know that, “You are not alone.”

My daughter is now 9 and despite a long court case, nothing much has changed.

My ex has hurt me for years on end and she seems relentless in erasing me from our daughter’s life. I am reduced to nothing more than a brokenhearted dad that battles on for justice in the courts.

Will someone make or encourage my ex to let me see our daughter, to see me as an equal parent, and let me be a part of our daughter’s life? I have a lot to give and a lot to teach her, but the only people she gets to see is her mothers’ friends and family. Not a true representation of her whole family!

SUPPORT OUR CAUSE ~ Children’s RightsThe Harm Caused By Family Court System - 2016

Not all dads are good fathers. What about the deadbeats?

What about them? You want an acknowledgement that they in fact exist?

Of course they do. So do bad mothers. Abusive ones. Neglectful ones. Their existence however doesn’t disadvantage mothers as a whole walking into a courtroom.

Do you think that as The Fathers’ Rights Movement–a movement for fathers fighting for their children–we should jump on the “screw dads” bandwagon like all of the politicians, media, and the countless mom groups out there talking about how bad dad is, how inferior the paternal instinct allegedly is to the maternal instinct?

”Bad dads” are thrown in our face everywhere else on the internet and in society. We tell the other side of that story–the one that virtually never gets heard. Why do people get all up in arms because we focus on dads who are fighting for their children?

Can we not have one place where we don’t have the fact that bad dads exist thrown in our face?

We get it.

It’s not like we’re not aware that some dads are deadbeats.

We do however know these to be the minority compared to fathers who are good fathers and want to be fathers. We do question, in most of the instances where a father is being accused of being a deadbeat, whether or not he actually is or was never allowed the chance. Fathers not being treated equally is a much more serious and prevalent problem than fathers who willingly walk away when they were given a fair chance.

A true deadbeat would not likely even bother to join a movement such as this. He’s not fighting to see his kids. He has nothing to offer this movement, and we have nothing to offer him.

TFRM is for fathers fighting for equal consideration in their children’s best interest, and all fathers deserve to at least be considered an equal unless they prove or reveal themselves to be otherwise.

That is the purpose of this movement.

–Derek

This man is spot on. Parental Alienation is a mental health problem caused by the alienating parent that goes back to THEIR childhood. I always thought this was the case. Not helped of cause by Cafcass not even recognizing that it exists. Dr Childress has studied this for seven years. The courts can sort it once the mental health systems recognize it and not the other way around. A great eye opener.

Children's and Fathers Rights - Battling Parental Alienation in the UK & Beyond

My daughter is now 9 and despite a long court case, nothing much has changed. For 12 days every fortnight I am a hard-working, broken-hearted person and I cannot find anything in the UK to make me happy.

For the two days every fortnight that I get to spend with my daughter, I am a happy, proud and confident person, a total contrast to my days without her.

Yesterday I gazed out the window watching fireworks and was really missing my angel but I cannot call her, she doesn’t call me and knowing she is only a mile away hurts like hell.

My ex has hurt me for years on end and she seems relentless in erasing me from our daughter’s life and I am reduced to nothing more than a broken-hearted dad that battles on for justice in the courts, so that someone will make my ex encourage our…

View original post 124 more words

The system has been corrupted by money

Florida Family Court CorruptionHelp Me!  #StandupforZoraya - 2015
STOP Court’s DENIAL of REASONABLE Parent/Child CONTACTLogo 2- 2016

PEMBROKE LAKES ELEMENTARY - PARENTAL ALIENATION PROOFPlease sign the petition to Florida 11th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Honorable Bertila Soto please pledge to Contact the Florida Courts – Demand Judge Manno-Schuerr’s Recusal – Reinstatement of Timesharing

STOP Court’s DENIAL of REASONABLE Parent/Child CONTACT

9b9ba-justice2bmoving2bpicAccess To Civil Justice?

How do you put a face on what it means to have an equal opportunity for access to civil justice? That’s difficult — but the Feb. 15 edition of The Florida Bar News attempts to do just that in their article, “Putting a human face on the civil legal access gap: Access Commission learns how the system is broken”
Look no further than the story of Miami’s Maria Garcia, said Commission member and Third DCA Clerk of Court Mary Cay Blanks during a recent January Commission meeting. Garcia was fired from her job of 15 years, denied benefits and didn’t know where to turn. When she visited Blanks’ office to file an appeal, the attendant simply handed her forms and wasn’t permitted — by law — to give her any legal advice. Unable to afford a lawyer,

Ms. Garcia left feeling frustrated and unsure of what step to take next, as if the system had failed her.

That has to change, said Blanks.

“The challenge we face in my office is being able to assist them in a meaningful way without crossing that line of giving out too much information and worrying about the unauthorized practice of law,” Blanks told the Commission. “So we err on the side of giving less information because we don’t want to cross that line. The perception is that we’re unhelpful; it causes a lot of people leaving the office disgruntled, and feeling like they are not getting their day in court, or we’re not going to help them get their day in court.”

Read why and how that process soon will change: http://bit.ly/1uwFLMS

ff7d4-well2bbeing2bof2bchildMemo To Followers: The Ugly Truth About Why States Don’t Want Shared/Equal Parenting (Continued): 2

You may recall that I recently posted a memo describing how States are profiting from the creation of absent parents (see the link below for the original post).

Well, in that post, I only described part of the money picture the States are getting.

And while I’m still working on it, below is copy from an email I recently sent to FatherandFamilies.org that provides a bit more clarity and detail about how The Feds providing financial incentives to States who create absent parents and/or maximize child support payements.

Again, if you feel lost, the original post is linked below.

“Hi Robert:

I’ve actually been working on honing in on exactly how all this works, because even in the post you’re referencing, I acknowledged some fuzziness within my own understanding.

I’ve also been working trying to get some recent budget data on this to sort of back test what my understanding of the laws are. However, the OCE hasn’t published it’s budget since 2008.

In any case, here is my understanding of it:

There are three revenue sources for States associated with the collection and administration of child support payments defined under the broad cover of the Social Security Act:

(1) 66% reimbursement for allowable expenditures, which are:

a. Costs for locating parents
b. Costs for establishing orders
c. Costs for collecting child support payments
d. Costs for establishing paternity
e. Any other misc. costs approved by the Secretary for reimbursement.
f.  And exception of 90% matching for the following two expenditures
i.  Improving management information systems
ii. Blood testing

(2) Welfare recovery and matching:

a. Recovered TANF payments are split between the Federal Government and States consistent with Federal reimbursement of medical benefits (I’m still not clear about exactly how this part works in practice.)

(3) Incentive pool (Public Law 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1988 ( enacted July 16, 1998 ))

With the incentive pool, states must compete for their share of the funds, which I believe currently, is around $530MM to $535MM.

A. The incentive amount = State Incentive Pool (x) State Incentive Share

B. State Incentive Share = Incentive Base Amount For The State (/) Sum of Incentive Base Amounts For All States

C. Incentive Base Amount = Sum Of Applicable Percentages {defined by paragraph 6 of the Act} (x) Corresponding Maximum Incentive Base Amounts for each bonus category:
Bonus Categories Are:
A. Paternity Establishment Performance Level
B. Support Order Performance Level
C. Current Payment Performance Level
D. Arrearage Performance Level
E. Cost Effectiveness Performance Level

D. Maximum Incentive Base Amount = State Collections Base (as measured in performance categories A,B,C) + 75% state collections base ( performance categories D, E).

E. State Collections Base = Sum ( 2 (x) amount collected in which support is assigned to the State (bonus categories A or E), amount of support collected that was at the time of collection, not required to be assigned), total amount of support collected)

Summary of Observations:

If the incentive structure gives you headache, take heart. I’m an econometrician by training, and it gives me one as well. And this is why I wanted to actual figures that I could use to test this stuff out.

In any case, here is how I’m visualizing the incentive program:

Think of it is a pie; we know this is a closed mathematical domain. So, the objective for each state is to maximize their share of the pie (incentive base amounts relative to other states). And in this regard, you’ll note that the Fed’s apply a 25% penalty to the maximum incentive base amounts for two categories: (1) Support collected in arrears, and (2) Support Costs. Number two kind of puzzles me. The only thing that makes sense to me here, is that this deflation is intended to hit those states with particularly high costs per amount collected harder than those who perform better.

Secondly, you’ll note that the Fed’s place double the weight of state administered child support payments assigned to the State for collection; either by order or agreement.

So, with respect to incentive pools, I’m deducing:

(1) An incentive to maximize the amount of child support ordered.
(2) An incentive to maximize the amount of child support collected.
(3) An incentive to avoid high collection costs.
(4) An incentive to assign collections to the State for Administration.
(5) A penalty to incentive base amounts for child support amounts in arrears.Enforce Visitation NOT Child Support - 2016In other words, the name of the game here for States, is to generate the biggest number possible (incentive base amount) constrained by the maximum incentive base amount. Once these numbers are in for the year, shares are created and the pie is split up.

Now, as it relates observation (3), this is why I really wanted the budget data. States already get reimbursed for 66% of their hard costs, and get a little bit of extra in there for a couple of other things. The part that’s concerning, is the allowable expanse for “other” expenses approved by the Secretary. Because as I see it, it would not be all that difficult shore up the remaining 34% with all kinds little creative accounting tactics if the political sentiment supported the behavior – this is a political black box in the accounting (as I see it).

Summary:

(1) States get reimbursed for 66% of the hard costs of collecting and administering child support.

(2) States bonus funds for welfare programs using a formula consistent with Federal medical program reimbursements.

(3) States get bonus funds from a shared incentive pool, in which those incentives are driven by the nominal amount of child support collected and the performance in collecting it. And nowhere in the Act, do I see language that mandates how this incentive money is to be spent by states (as opposed to (1) and (2). In my mind, this makes it a Federal subsidy landing in the discretionary (general) budget of the States. ”

We need a winner - 2015

A fine group of elected officials we have here.

It really does seem to be all about the “Best interests of the children.”

Not.

~ Michael

Original Memo:

https://loveandiron.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/the-ugly-truth-why-states-and-courts-dont-want-shared-parenting/

The Ugly Truth: Why States and Courts Don’t Want Shared Parenting 10Judge Judy on Timesharing - 2016

This is a repost of the following Facebook Memo I posted on 8/28/12:

Memo To Followers:

Federal Title IVD Payments and Bonuses to States For the Collection and Administration of Child Support Payments.

Recently, I’ve been getting some queries about why I’ve been hammering so much on the issue of child support payments. And, I suspect, we’ve lost a follower or two because I’ve sort of ratcheted up the rhetoric on this topic a bit lately.

In fact, a couple of weeks a ago, we were having a discussion on this page in which I was asserting that States can receive anywhere from $1 to $2 in Federal subsidy payments for every dollar they collect and administer in child support payments.  And it was during one of this discussion that one of our followers asked the simple question, “Do you have any documentation on this?”.

Well, at the time, the only information I had available was budget information from the Office of Child Support Enforcement from 2009. So I contacted Michael McKormick at the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and he confirmed that my information was also the most recent published data he had as well (He also noted that Obama administration has been highly resistant to publishing any current budget data on this matter….).

In any case, enter my new best friend, Rita Fuerst Adams from Fathers and Families (Fathersandfamilies.org).

Because Rita was able to track down for me the actual act that describes exactly how these payments and bonuses are calculated.

I’ve Attached The Link For You Below. But Here Is The Short Story Version:

*The program is administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement within the Administration of Children and Families; which is governed by the Department of Health and Human Services.Extorting Fathers - 2016

* The Act governing the program is known as the `Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998′.

* There are bonus and penalty measures that determine the funding.

* Incentive Payments to States –

(1) IN GENERAL- The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year.

(2) INCENTIVE PAYMENT POOL-

(A) IN GENERAL- In paragraph (1), the term `incentive payment pool’ means–

(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; andFlorida Child Support System Reform Cyber Protest - 2016

(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year.

(B) CPI- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `Consumer Price Index’ means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.

*** So essentially, the pool value increases every year at growth rate equal to the consumer price index. Which for 2012, would put the incentive pool at a little over 530,000,000****

(3) STATE INCENTIVE PAYMENT SHARE- In paragraph (1), the term `State incentive payment share’ means, with respect to a fiscal year–

(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by

(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year.

Now, here’s where it gets important, because this is where the base value figures are established:

(4) INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT- In paragraph (3), the term incentive base amount’ means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:

(5) MAXIMUM INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT-

(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (4), the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year is–

(i) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (4), the State collections base for the fiscal year; and

(ii) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (4), 75 percent of the State collections base for the fiscal year.

Skipping some stuff here…NADAD - Advice - 2016

(C) STATE COLLECTIONS BASE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of–

(i) 2 times the sum of–

(I) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved is required to be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this title or title XIX; and

(II) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved was so assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to be so assigned; and

(ii) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in all other cases.

(A) The paternity establishment performance level.

(B) The support order performance level.

(C) The current payment performance level.

(D) The arrearage payment performance level.

(E) The cost-effectiveness performance level.

**So, you can see two important things here.

First, the reimbursements, payments, and bonuses are NOT determined by a reimbursement of State expenses incurred. In fact, the minimization of State Collection Costs is a bonus item.

Secondly, and this is really important, the figures used are the child support funds that States have under administration.

*** See the link for the actual tables for calculating bonuses, etc****

And here is something I found interesting. Check this out:

(c) TREATMENT OF INTERSTATE COLLECTIONS- In computing incentive payments under this section, support which is collected by a State at the request of another State shall be treated as having been collected in full by both States, and any amounts expended by a State in carrying out a special project assisted under section 455(e) shall be excluded.

***i.e. If two States are working together to collect funds, they both get credit for the purposes of establishing bonuses – this is pure gravy.Family Court vs Criminal Court - 2016

 

Note a couple of things here.

First, the bonus values are doubled for the categories of paternity test performance and cost performance.

So why would the Feds care about State costs? Because this is the bonus and incentive program, and States already receive a 66% dollar for dollar reimbursement for administrative costs (and I’m not sure, I’ll have to check, but i think there is a way they can finagle the remaining 34% to get even dollar for dollar match) under a different section of the Social Security Act.

So, there you have it.

States can get up to 100% reimbursement for administrative costs plus up to two times the bonus pool share for two categories along with the rest of it.

Now add to this, the fact that Courts often charge fees for posting these certified payments, and may assess additional fees and fines for enforcement, and you’ve got a very lucrative incentive for States and Courts to maximize child support payments.fam law guilty  - 2016

In Other Words, It Should Be No Surprise That:

(1) Child Support payments are maximized, regardless of whether the NCP can afford them. States and Courts don’t care; the debt can’t go way or be retroactively reduced.

(2) Equal and Shared parenting is disincented – this will reduce revenue to the States and Courts.

(3) More and more States are requiring mandatory garnishments and payment administration. People who are already paying on time will improve their performance ratings for bonus calculations.

(4) States like TX make it difficult for non-paternal parents relieve themselves of child support burdens.

And lastly,

(5) Why States and Courts are not persuaded by reasonable and humane arguments for shared parenting reforms.

The system has been corrupted by money and the Feds are driving this corruption.

It’s time to fire politicians.

~ MichaelViolence and Crime linked to fatherlessness - 2015votefamily-us-201511

Source:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/related/3130.htm

The Love and Iron Project

You may recall that I recently posted a memo describing how States are profiting from the creation of absent parents (see the link below for the original post).

Well, in that post, I only described part of the money picture the States are getting.

And while I’m still working on it, below is copy from an email I recently sent to FatherandFamilies.org that provides a bit more clarity and detail about how The Feds providing financial incentives to States who create absent parents and/or maximize child support payements.

Again, if you feel lost, the original post is linked below.

“Hi Robert:
 
I’ve actually been working on honing in on exactly how all this works, because even in the post you’re referencing, I acknowledged some fuzziness within my own understanding.
 
I’ve also been working trying to get some recent budget data on this to sort of back test what…

View original post 909 more words