Constitutionalizing Family Law

| Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice |

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Federalization of Family Law

Vol. 36 No. 3

Historically, family law has been a matter of state law. State legislatures define what constitutes a family and enact the laws that regulate marriage, parentage, adoption, child welfare, divorce, family support obligations, and property rights. State courts generally decide family law cases. But since the 1930s, Congress has enacted numerous federal statutes to address serious problems regarding family law matters that states have been either unwilling or unable to resolve, especially when the welfare of children is involved. Today, congressional legislation, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the participation of the United States in more international treaties have “federalized” more and more areas of family law traditionally left to the states.DivorceCorp - Consulted a minister and psychiatrist NOT Lawyer - AFLA Blog 2016

A multitude of federal laws now regulate and impact families; some specifically confer jurisdiction on federal courts. As a result, federal courts now hear a growing number of family law cases, especially those that involve complex interjurisdictional or full faith and credit issues. The Supreme Court has contributed to this federalization by “constitutionalizing” family law. It has repeatedly used the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Fourteenth Amendment, to extend constitutional privacy protections to increasing numbers of persons and to invalidate state laws in areas of law previously thought to be the exclusive province of state legislatures.

Internationalization of the law likewise contributes to federalization. As people and goods move freely across country borders, so do their family law issues and problems. The U.S. State Department now actively participates in the drafting of international treaties, working with the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations (UN) to address family law issues on a global scale. iinguanzo-v-rose-causes-20151The United States has ratified and implemented many international law conventions. The Supreme Court has noted the judicial opinions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving privacy rights of same-sex partners and the juvenile death penalty.

Congressional Action since the 1930s

For almost two hundred years, the fifty states regulated family law because the federal government did not. The Tenth Amendment left states with “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it.” Beginning with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, Congress has used its powers under the Commerce Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the spending power to set policy. A brief look at the areas of child support and child protection illustrate how Congress has set the national social welfare agenda by passing laws, allocating money for programs, and requiring states to comply with federal regulations to receive funding.

Continue reading

Psychiatric Ploys of Child Custody

Psychologist Margaret Hagen, a professor and medical industry insider, details the very real danger of this booming business.b1dfd-the2bfamily2bcourt2bis2bwrong25212521

In every state, a child can be taken away from a parent on the strength of five minutes of “neutral” testimony from a social worker. A criminal suspect’s freedom or incarceration can depend on a superficial psychological examination performed by an incompetent, overworked, or, at worst, paid-off psychologist. Parole hearings hinge on the testimony of similarly incomplete or fraudulent evaluations, allowing “rehabilitated” violent criminals back onto the street to commit more heinous crimes, with no accountability for the reviewing “expert.”

Unmasking some legal psycho-expertise as a total fraud, Dr. Hagen instructs readers to protect themselves and their families from being victimized by psychological testimony in the courtroom. In today’s frenzied legal climate, her insight and wisdom make for provocative, compelling and invaluable reading.

Rep. Tim Murphy on Plan to Reform Mental Health Care

As part of its regular briefing series, this morning the Child Mind Institute welcomed to its New York City headquarters

Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA), who provided an update on the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015, H.R. 2646.  The Act, introduced by Reps. Murphy and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), focuses on mental health reform that would help both those with mental illness and families who are struggling to get necessary care for their loved ones.  According to Rep. Murphy, the legislation has advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, and its chances of coming up for a vote in the full House in 2016 are strong.

Continue reading

Family Court Causes Trauma-Stress Disorder (PTSD)

…is a psychic injury, not a mental illness.

Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), a condition proposed by marriage and family therapist Karin P. Huffer, whose books on the subject of post-traumatic 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)

Victimized by Family Court - Judge Soto Miami Florida - 2015

“Develops in individuals assaulted by ethical violations, legal abuses, betrayals, and fraud” and that’s exacerbated by “abuse of power and authority and a profound lack of accountability in our courts.” ~  Karin P. Huffer

Continue reading

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

Malachi’s Law

gardening - 2016The bill will:
1. Design a “three strikes” for custodial parents who intend to subvert visitation with the non custodial parent and the child.
2. Visitation exchanges will occur at a location in the local police department. Each parent will identify themselves using a fingerprint scanner. Name, date will be recorded into a database.
3. Strike one. Custodial or non custodial parent does not show for the visitation exchange.
4. Strike two. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange. Child support obligations for the non custodial parent are relieved that month, and will resume the following month.
5. Strike three. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange, triggering a third degree felony for T.I.C.K – Tortious Interference Child Kidnapping. The State Attorney or Prosecutor will file charges on the custodial parent for T.I.C.K.
6. Exceptions will be made as necessary for health emergencies.
7. Immunity for State Attorneys, Attorneys and Judges will be removed if those parties fail to enforce T.I.C.K. Complaints for violations by any party including Judges and attorneys will be maintained in the T.I.C.K database, available as public information for no charge.
8. Non custodial parents who do not appear for parenting time at the exchange will trigger a 50% increase in child support for that month, since the burden of support will be on the custodial parent.

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

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parental Alienation is either a form of Domestic Violence or on the continuum of Domestic Violence behaviors.

Parental Alienation is either a form of Domestic Violence or on the continuum of Domestic Violence behaviors.

167 Red Flags or Examples of Parental Alienation

The Alienating parent will exhibit specific behaviors, signs and symptoms than those of the children and the target parent.  The following examples of Alienators behavior are called Red Flags.  The more of these a parent exhibits or enacts, the higher the probability of PAS occurring.you can make a difference - 2016

Below is a list of over 150 most often used tactics to alienate children from a parent.  A score of 10 or more is an indicator of PAS.
1. Impeding with visitation, despite orders
2. Denigrating the other parent in front of anyone who will listen, including the children, as well as calling the TP or step-parent derogatory names in front of the child.
3. Filing allegations of abuse while constantly dragging the ex into court for child support or alimony.  (Note: A truly abused individual wants to have nothing to do with the abuser, making face-to-face confrontation out of the question..
4. Stopping any contact with the children and the ex’s extended family or friends who disagree with them.
5. Believing that they are above the law, and that all orders/laws were made for everyone else but them.
6. Impeding Communication with the children, including blocking access to school records and meetings and events.
7. Grilling the children about their visit, asking the children to spy or collect evidence.
8. Refusing visitation because the ex spouse has been unable to afford the child support or not made a payment.
9. Statements of constant hatred and vengeance about the ex-spouse
10.Refusal to disclose their home address
11. Refusal to supply or keep the other parent in the loop on medical issues, educational issues, events pertaining to the child/ren and so on.
12. Continually referring to the child as their own children and not the spouses.
13. Continually not enforcing the visitation with the other parent by claiming the children do not want to go (Barring no true abuse is truly going on. and using the excuse that they are not going to force the children to go see their other parent if they do not want to.
14. Impeding any court orders, including Counseling orders.
15. Moving the children away from a parent they once had a loving relationship with, and thus making visitation and a relationship next to impossible.
16. During visitation times, constantly calling the house, to speak with the child/ren or leaving nasty disruptive messages.
17. On days that TP is in a public place the parent shows up to either push, swear at or just intimidate them or the stepparent in front of the child.
18. Making the child feel emotional responsible for the parent’s happiness so that the child is as protective as an adult might be towards a young child.
19. Lying or even involving the child in the divorce proceedings and custody or child support issues.
20. Making the child feel uneasy about talking to their therapist or other official person.Child-Brain-Development - 2016
21. Having the child call his non-custodial parent by his/her first name; instead of Daddy or Mommy
22. Preventing the children from contacting their father by pulling the phone out of the wall, changing their phone number, refusing to allow them to accept calls, refusing to allow them to make phone calls or lying and claiming the children are not home or are asleep.
23. Discussing and involving the children in court, child support and other legal matters, which they should not be involved in.
24. Insisting that the children call the new person in the AP’s life “Mom or Dad
25. Escalating PASing behavior if the NCP commences a new relationship
26. Insisting that the children NEVER call a stepparent “mum” or “dad”.
27. Hanging up the telephone if discussions do not follow “their” agenda
28. When the child is allowed to speak to the TP on the telephone the PASing parent will oversee the call, instructing the child on what to say and how to respond to the TP and force the end of the call if either child or TP fail to conduct the call as the PASing parent deems appropriate.
29. Deliberately pulling the children away if they meet the target parent out i.e. at the shops.
30. Avoiding children’s activities i.e. school events as the target parent may be there
31. Previous evidence of anger management issues
32. Poor family support network or a family network that supports the PASing behavior
33. Refuse to communicate via fax, email or letter as to do so will provide evidence in the form of a paper trail of their activities.
34. Will wait until the last minute to inform the target parent of changes to visitation.
35. Will feel it is their right to provide the children for visitation late but insist the children MUST be returned to the exactly on time.
36. Will not provide any information to the target parent about the children’s day-to-day activities but will insist on knowing exactly what the target parent will be doing with the children whilst they are with the TP.
37. Will choose to pay others to provide childcare and not utilize the TP even if it would be more suitable for all parties.
38. Will claim the child is too sick to visit the target parent.
39. Will claim the TP is not capable of parenting the child “Properly”
40. Cause the child to feel guilt about wanting to see their other parent
41. Avoid, at all costs, using a neutral drop off / pick up location
42. Refuse to allow the TP any contact with ‘Professionals’ who are in support of the PASing parent
43. Not allowing the children to participate in activities, where they may come into contact with children associated with the TP.
44. Will instruct the school that the TP is not to be trusted, inferring or clearly stating that the TP has lied to others about the PASing parent and children, including putting notes in school files about not allowing contact or pick up by Targeted Parent.
45. If cornered about providing TP’s information for school records, Protective Services or any other official, the PASing parent will give false or misleading information.
46. PASing parent has removed pages from a child’s classroom journal that fail to support PASing parent’s ideology and/or support the TP.
47. Totally controlling the children’s social life
48. Becoming overly involved with the children’s activities i.e. cub leader, parent support worker so that they are constantly with the children and keep the other parent from attending these activities.
49. Lie to the children about the separation/divorce including by giving details that are ‘obviously’ untrue which deliberately impede the child’s ability to love the other parent i.e. dad spends all his money on his girlfriends so I can’t afford to let you go to camp.
50. Involve the children in all the aspects of the separation, divorce and on going legalities whilst claiming the child has the ‘right’ to know what is happening.Grandpa - 2016
51. Claiming the TP is victimizing, stalking, abusing, and harassing them to the point of actually involving the police.  Filing of false allegations of abuse,  making false and repeatedly harassing complaints to child protective agencies, police and others so as to constantly put the Targeted Parent under attack and investigation.
52. Encouraging the child to support the PASing parent to lie to authorities on how they are treated when with the TP even though there is no evidence of poor treatment, but just  the reverse.
53. Encourages the child to be defiant, to go on strike, to not comply with the reasonable rules when in the presence of TP.
54. PASing parent deliberately organizes ‘activities’ for the children on the TP’s visitation time i.e. parties, outings and social gatherings.
55. The PASing parent will use bribery and enticements to prevent a child from visiting with the TP, and make the child feel guilty for wanting to be with the TP rather than attend an event the PASing parent has organized to happen during TP visitation time.
56. Not allowing the children to have photos of or objects provided by the TP in the house.   The PASing parent will destroy any gifts, photo’s etc should the child bring them home.
57. When the child receives gifts from the TP and takes them home to show the PASing parent, the PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take them back to the TP’s house or keep them.
58. PASing parent refuses gifts from the TP and his family, actually making the children return them saying they are no good or cheap or useless and so on.
59. PASing parent will deliberately condemn the target parent’s gifts or purposely purchase them ahead the target parent so that the target parent’s gift is meaningless.
60. The PASing parent changes the child’s surname to the ‘new dads’ name without asking or notifying the birth father.
61. PASing parent will attend TP’s family functions without prior invite despite ‘knowing’ that their behavior will be viewed negatively.    The PASing parent will use this negativity to inform the children of the TP’s family’s hatred of them.
62. Refuses to pick up the telephone when the child is calling from the TP’s residence.
63. Insist that when the child is with the TP that they have the ‘right’ to excessive telephone contact with the child, yet allow the TP to have little to no telephone contact.
64. Deliberately changed the telephone number and maintaining a ‘silent’ number without notifying the TP or providing the TP with the number.
65. The PASing parent tells the child that ‘they hope they will be OK when with the TP, that they shouldn’t need to go to hospital, etc. thus creating an image of fear for the child when with the TP.
66. Telling the child that “Something” may happen to the PASing parent whilst the child is with the TP.
67. Demanding the TP pay for extra costs associated with child rearing i.e. Orthodontic work.
68. Informing the child that they cannot have ‘braces’ or other essentials because the TP won’t pay for it.
69. Refuse a child’s request to spend extra time with the TP, even when this time is for a one off special occasion.
70. Refusing to send the child to school for events when the PASing parent becomes aware that the TP will be attending.
71. Removing money placed in the child’s bank account by the TP and not allowed the child to spend it or has not spent it on the child.
72. Tells the child in a deliberately malicious and vindictive manner that a behavior the child is / has done is similar to the TP.
73. PASing parent will excessively emphasize the physical and facial features that are similar to the PASing parent and associated family and ignore or deny features associated with the TP.
74. PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take a pet on visitation with TP even though TP is happy and willing to accommodate the pet.
75. PASing parent has deliberately moved without providing TP details prior to the move.
76. PASing parent has deliberately moved and refuses to provide TP with appropriate details.
77. PASing parent allows a person contact with the child contrary to the TP’s wishes especially when the TP has reasonable grounds for their concern, i.e. domestic violence, previously proven abuse.
78. The child undergoes or has undergone unnecessary surgical procedures without the prior knowledge or consent of the TP when there is evidence supporting the TP’s position.
79. The PASing parent attempts to bribe, extort or threaten the TP into signing court documents that will exclude the TP from the child’s life or enhance the PASing parent’s position.
80. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP to be dead, die or be killed, or severely injured.
81. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP and other family members / friends associated with the TP to suffer some major mishap or injury.
82. The PASing parent attempts or succeeds in changing the child’s religion.
83. Told the child they can’t see the other parent because they are behind in their child support payments.
84. Is unjustly rude and refuses to work co-operatively with the new partner of the other parent for the benefit of the child.
85. Has refused of failed to provide mental health support for the child when there is reasonable evidence to support the child needs and would benefit from mental health intervention.PA IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE-COLLAGE - 2016
86. Refusing to allow the child to participate in weekend sporting / developmental classes as the other parent would be present during the child’s attendance for part / half of the time.
87. Parent has attempted to bribe officials, specialists and professionals to act / report in the favor of that parent even when there is evidence to the contrary.
88. Parent has deliberately mislead, lied or concealed information or evidence to further his or her own case.
89. Parent has physically assaulted the target parent in the presence of the child.
90. Parent has forged, altered or tampered with official documentation to further his or her own case.
91. The parent has submitted false and misleading statements to the police about the target parent and their family that that parent knew in advance to be false and misleading.
92. Has displayed anger / verbal abuse concerning the target parent in front of the child or third party.
93. Has attempted to or actually assisted the child to write letters / notes or to delivery same to the target parent
94. Encouraged the child to support them in their allegations against the target parent despite obvious evidence disputing claims made by both parent and child.
95. Coaching, threatening or intimidating the child to remain silent about incidents the child has witnesses that do not support the custodial parent.
96. Threatening or punishing the child for saying positive things about the target parent.
97. Refused to provide the child for DNA testing when requested to do so.
98. Deliberately cause alienation between siblings when one supports the custodial parent and the other the target parent.
99. Told the child that the other parent does not love him or her that the other parent never wanted the child to be born.
100. Told the child about intimate details pertaining to the marriage, which are inappropriate and done in a way to deliberately cause distress to the child.
101. Has refused to share prescribed medication with the other parent during access.
102. Alienator insists that the target parent’s extended family is not the children’s “real family” or that they are no good.
103. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by the TPs new partner.
104. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by children born to the TP and any new partner – whether or not children have been born.
105. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by the TP’s new partner’s child(ren. and that they are therefore not wanted or loved by the TP.
106. Alienator denigrates all statements, answers, discipline and activities of the TP with regard to their child(ren. .
107. Alienator frequently suggests to the child(ren. that the TP and/or new partner will do harm to the child(ren. .
108. Alienator demands that the TP be subjected to and accept blame for any injury incurred by the child however minor and natural in the course of life.
109. Alienator forces the child to report minor injuries, bumps and bruises from play to a professional person as being the result of the TP and/or new partner.
110. Alienator shaves off the child’s hair when the cut is provided by the TP stating that the cut is bad and the hair ruined.
111. Alienator refuses the TP to comfort the child when injured in play.
112. Alienator demands medical intervention for minor illnesses (ie. Demanding antibiotics for colds. and play injuries.
113. Alienator undertakes “doctor shopping” until a practitioner sympathetic to their cause is found.
114. Alienator does not comply with appropriate medical advice from practitioners who are not sympathetic to their cause.
115. Alienator actively damages (cutting, tearing or staining. clothing provided for the child by the TP.
116. Alienator refuses reasonably required medical treatment where the TP has sought review for a serious medical condition, which impairs the child or causes them to suffer.
117. Alienator allows the child to undertake activities after separation from TP, which were previously refused and blames the TP for denying the child such activities.
118. Alienator refuses to allow the child(ren. time alone with other adults or children.
119. Alienator refuses to allow children to attend sleepovers with friends accusing friends parents of abuse.
120. Alienator refuses to allow sleepovers stating that they ‘do not want the children to see how others live.”
121. Alienator frequently tells the child(ren. that TP will harm them, has mental health problems etc. creating a fear of the TP.
122. Alienator informs the child(ren. that the TP has a criminal record for harming children.
123. Alienator will not allow the child(ren. to undergo any medical or psychological assessment without being present.
124. Alienator informs the child(ren. that they were unwanted by the TP and that the TP insisted that pregnancy be terminated.
125. Alienator insists that TP’s family never accepted she or the children and insisted that the pregnancy (ies. be terminated.
126. Alienator blames TP for poor food quality, housing quality and/or availability of funds even where child support is paid and/or alienator contact is minimal.
127. Alienator blames TP and new partner for stealing home, food, resources from the Alienator and child(ren. .
128. Alienator ignores the child(ren. when they discuss activities with the TP.
129. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren. discuss activities with the TP.
130. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren. express a desire to see/phone the TP.
131. Alienator becomes angered when child(ren. engage in mother’s/father’s day activities at school which are focused on the TP.
132. Alienator becomes angered when child expresses desire for contact with TP to school teachers/mates/colleagues.
133. Alienator removes child from school and relocates child without cause if the child expressed a desire for contact with TP.
134. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP is happier without them.
135. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP does not love them anymore, is never going to see them again, does not want them any more.
136. Alienator accuses the child(ren. of causing rifts/separation in the marriage.
137. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP is leaving THE CHILD(REN. rather than the marriage or the alienator.
138. Alienator accuses the TP of infidelity in earshot of the child(ren. .
139. Alienator writes letters ‘on behalf’ of the child(ren. claiming that the child(ren. have had input.
140. Alienator actively seeks to ensure that children believe that TP sends no letters, gifts or monies.
141. Alienator removes and destroys any items sent to the child(ren. through an outside facility (ie. School, grandparent. . This usually occurs on leaving the facility and appearing publicly to accept the items for the child.
142. Alienator actively destroys and discards any gifts or letters that the child(ren. do see.
143. Alienator insists that the child(ren. refer to TP using only a derogatory term (ie. The Bastard.
144. Alienator presents school teachers/principals with falsified documents/letters from practitioners or the AP.
145. Alienator pawns the TP’s personal and private belongings citing financial hardship to the child(ren. .
146. Alienator pawns or returns to the retailer, gifts from TP citing financial hardship to the children.
147. Alienator takes every opportunity to belittle the TP, in the presence of the child(ren. , when seeking assistance from welfare agencies and providers.
148. Refuses to provide TP with vital medical information thereby impeding the child(ren. s medical wellbeing.
149. Refusing to notify TP of identified allergies.
150. Refusing to notify TP of medical concerns or treatments for child(ren.
151. Accuse TP of stealing items the child has lost.
152. Attributing failure in school activities/studies to TP.
153. Accusing TP of neglecting the child(ren. .
154. Denies essential medical care or treatment on the basis of financial hardship caused by TP.
155. Consumes drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol and blaming TP for addictions.
156. Purchases personal luxuries whilst denying children essentials and blaming TP for financial hardship.
157. Refusing to allow child to bid TP goodbye after visitation with any affection shown in front of Alienator.
158. Makes derogatory noises/comments when child or TP exhibit affection in presence of alienator.
159. Accuses TP of displaying affection to child(ren. for ulterior motive.
160. Accuses TP of PAS behaviours.
161. Denigrates new partner or partner’s children to PAS children.
162. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s new partner.
163. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s extended family.
164. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s consequent children or children of new partner.
165. Contacts TP’s extended family in presence of child(ren. to make false allegations of abuse/neglect/PAS.
166. Refuses to allow child to give gifts/notes/paintings/letters to TP, new partner, children or extended family.
167. AP is constantly rude, nasty, controlling and dictates when, where and what the TP can do with the kids during their time.  This attitude is also permeated to the children who are rude, nasty, controlling and dictate when, where and how they will spend their time with the TP.

Source Link:  http://www.klothcon … attachment

The Petition is available at http://www.AVNetnews.net/Malachi.php to sign up.Support Judge Gorcyca - Parental Alienation is Child Abuse - 2016

wethefamilies

Malachi's Law

Proposed solution…MALACHI’S LAW
We believe that Parental Alienation or PAS deserves legislative changes. Although we are weary of the overbearing enormity of big government, the tears of our children whom God stores in a bottle and the blood of our forefathers who died for our constitution cries out for change in the form of Malachi’s Law. Please follow the link for a full explanation of Malachi’s Law. In short, we believe the severity of the damage inflicted on our helpless, vulnerable children justifies criminalizing Parental Alienation or PAS to a minimum third degree felony with mandatory prison time.
Malachi’s Bill is citizen’s answer to unresponsive, corrupt family courts:

The bill will:
1. Design a “three strikes” for custodial parents who intend to subvert visitation with the non custodial parent and the child.
2. Visitation exchanges will occur at a location in the local police department. Each parent will identify themselves…

View original post 3,809 more words

A Barometer We Can’t Ignore’

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Researching Reform: ‘Children’s Mental Health in the 21st Century – a Barometer We Can’t Ignore’

A. Do child custody proceedings and family laws violate substantive due process rights of fit parents, as contrary to the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence that state courts are not to enter the family realm without a compelling interest?
B. Does a child have a reciprocal substantive right to the care, custody, and companionship of his or her parent, reciprocal to that of the child’s parents?
C. Does the current Family Court climate deliberately and systematically violate the civil and constitutional rights of families?
D. Are parents second-class citizens?
E. Is there a nobility in this country?
F. Do Family Courts across America engage in conducting a cottage industry as a RICO Enterprise?
G. Are Family Courts operating a “Kids for Cash” scheme to sell parents’ own children back to them?
H. Has the domestic relations exception of Federal Court created a “black hole” of injustice?
I. Do Family Courts operate as quasi-criminal courts and as such, shouldn’t families be entitled to the same procedural protections as criminal courts?
J. Do Family Courts across America deliberately and systematically usurp the Constitution of the United States of America?
K. Do Family Courts across America deliberately and systematically usurp federal case law such as that of Troxel v. Granville, Santosky v. Kramer, and Griswold v. Connecticut?
L. Are these acts not seditious? Treason?
M. Would it not be better to abolish the Family Courts altogether as they seem to serve no other purpose than to terrorize families pursuant to 18 USC § 2331?
N. Should families negotiate with these terrorists contrary to public policy?
O. Has society changed in a way that requires a change in legal principles?

FRE 501 permits federal judges to announce evidentiary privileges that are not codified, but that should be recognized in view of changes in societal values.
www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-u-s-senate-president-of-the-united-states-abolish-the-tyranny-of-state-family-courts-and-enact-federal-legislation-that-provides-strong-procedural-protections-to-families-and-makes-child-sexual-abuse-a-federal-crime-in-th/u/9396366

Continue reading