We will be standing up and speaking up for our children.
Children need both parents! Stronger Families & Stronger Children Build Stronger Communities
Bring your parents, grandparents, children, friends and family.
We will be 1,000 strong in Tally!!!
About the Venue — Saturday, November 5 at 9 AM – 6 PM
We are Fathers helping Fathers. We are parents helping parents. We are advocates dedicated to bringing a change to end fatherlessness in Florida.
The Dysfunctional Family Court System Organizational Chart:
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.”
********************* 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.
MSC, CHIEF OF STAFF
Larry S. Royster
Phone: (313) 875-5110
Fax: (313) 875-5154
Florida Florida Access To Civil Justice Florida Justice Association And Justice 4 All ~ Florida Florida Justice Institute Childrens Rights Florida Children’s Rights Stop Child Abuse Stop Emotional Child Abuse
Being the queen of generalizations I am going out on a ledge.But hear me out. Even one of the columbine shooters was treated with an anxiety medication. Maybe we should see why the rates of asperger’s and autism are increasing? Maybe it could be as simple as the food we eat.(over processed). I say more love and understanding and having 2 parents would fix this sooner than gun legislation~Jan
As an advocate for fathers against family court’s anti-father rulings. They unintentionally obscure the real tyranny that fathers face. Their pleas and actions play into complex morass that family court and its benefactors use as a smokescreen to cover its tyranny.
The family court is a far cry from its original version during our nation’s first century. Then, societal values made divorce and out-of-wedlock children rare. Fathers and mothers were held responsible for contracted obligations but not denied their parental rights and benefits. Society recognized both the fundamental rights of individuals and the importance of preserving the family because of the natural protection and incentives it afforded to its members – and to freedom from government intrusion into the family.
But the family court has, now, long been perverted into the family destruction business. It does so by denying fit fathers their parental rights to their own children – the…
View original post 789 more words
In adjudicating child custody, the court weighs multiple factors to determine the best interest of the child. Most state statutes and court decisions in the United States permit judges to consider the factor of parental mental health. To answer how judges consider this factor when adjudicating child custody, 17 judges who oversee child custody determinations participated in semi-structured in depth interviews conducted by the author. By providing judges with an opportunity to discuss their decision-making process in such cases, this paper provides a unique occasion to understand and gain insight into the process by which judges consider this best interest factor. Thus, the study reported here is the first to specifically examine judicial consideration of parental mental health when adjudicating custody. These interviews reveal that for judges, parental mental illness is not an a priori reason to deny custody. Judges make custody decisions based on information from the observations and recommendations of a Guardian ad litem, custody evaluations, and personal observations of the judge, framed by “common sense.” Judges, however, tend to overestimate their understanding of the psychological factors relevant to post-divorce adjustment. At the same time, they do not discharge effectively their gatekeeping role when they consider, without question, the evidence, opinions, and conclusions offered by evaluators. To address these problems, it is recommended that judges overseeing child custody proceedings be required to receive more effective training concerning the relevancy and significance of parental mental health, understanding and applying social science and behavioral research, and evaluating expert recommendations. In addition, the law should afford such judges more latitude to consider remissions of a contesting parent’s psychiatric symptoms. Lastly, both the law and the judges who enforce it should presumptively afford the mentally ill parent an opportunity for rehabilitation before implementing a permanent custody order.
How Does the Presence of Mental Illness Impact a Child Custody Decision?
According to the Marriage Act, a parent’s mental health shall not be considered if it “does not affect his relationship to the child.” 131 That is, if there is no nexus between the mental illness and the best interest of the child, the judge may not consider the diagnosis in deciding child custody. Judges interviewed for this study overwhelmingly stated that they considered the parent’s mental illness only if it was perceived to relate to the child’s best interest.132 “The issues is how does the [ ] [mental illness] affect your parenting, not do you have a mental health diagnosis.” 133 Another judge noted, “if there is a mental health issue. . . what can you do to make sure that the best interest of the child or children are not harmed. . . [I]t is certainly not a trump card for the other side.” 134 One judge stressed, “I don’t care about the diagnosis. I care whether the party can function if they had custody of the child.” 135 Another judge responded by saying, “[H]ow has the parent dealt with their condition? . . . [A]re they able to handle it and still look after the best interest of the child?