We are a coalition of ordinary Florida citizens from all walks of life very concerned with the safety and well-being of our children and families. We believe that we must unite to defend our families for their is great power in unity.
What’s causing the children’s death under the DCF and the separation of our families? One word summarizes it: GREED.
The same greed motivation is behind the forced separation of parents in family courts. If one of the parents has less than 50/50 time sharing, he/she is forced to pay child support, and for every dollar the states spend in child support, the federal government reimburses 66 cents back (so for every $1 the states spend, they receive $1.98 dollars back, a 98% ROI) plus millions in incentives to the states, as per Title IV-D of the social security.
1) If you or someone you know has been affected by DCF or Family courts, join CAPRA as one of the lead plaintiffs in an upcoming landmark federal class action lawsuit against all 50 States and the Federal Government, because you qualify as:
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.COMSiding with Democratic legislators, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) vetoed alimony reform legislation that Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature had passed by aEXAMINER.COMPlease 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 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!
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.
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.
In “Stand Up For Zoraya”
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
With great interest, I read Alec Baldwin’s book, A Promise to Ourselves, which is anything but flattering to all of those who work within the family law community — its lawyers, judges, and court-ordered therapists. Baldwin makes many claims: among them, that the “American family law system has degenerated into a disgraceful mess…” And though he says, “…this book is not an indictment of all attorneys and the legal profession,” the reader is left to wonder.
Baldwin draws an analogy of what it is like to get a divorce, aiming this next remark toward the professionals who work in the family law field: “When someone is sick, our society usually offers some means of care. The sick individual reaches out to professionals who arrive with their skills and training at the ready, prepared to solve the problem. When illness afflicts a marriage,” he goes on to say, “the professionals who arrive on the scene often are there to prolong the bleeding, not to stop it. To be pulled into the American family law system,” he writes, “…is like being tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down a gravel road late at night.”
As he rails against the system, on nearly every page of the book’s Introduction and throughout many pages in the subsequent chapters, he contends that “the problem lies not only with antagonistic lawyers who perpetuate conflict, but also with the judges who sit idly by and do nothing to rein them in.” He says about his own lawyers in their failure to educate him as to what he should expect: “They provided little information, and even much of that was irrelevant to the questions I asked. They were inside a system, an inefficient, corrupt, amoral system, and they wanted to be left to work that system with as little interference from me as possible.”
Baldwin also tells the reader that divorce is now a $28-billion dollar industry in the United States and that “family law is a racket.” He also says “the battle between couples with deep pockets and lingering, unresolved personal issues becomes the Super Bowl for divorce attorneys.” Moreover, he flatly states, “Family law in most states has become its own preserve, one in which litigants come and go while the principal players remain the same. Those players, not the families whose fates are determined by this system, are the ones who profit from protecting the status quo.” As if to level a gavel with concluding thoughts along those lines, he finishes with: “We have, I believe, a system designed to line the pockets of these principals.”
Angry words from an angry man.
Though I take umbrage at his nasty accusations toward all those with whom I work in the family law community — those who, for the most part, do their level best to help individuals who find it necessary to go their separate ways do so as undamaged as possible — I truly understand the frustration and pain he must have felt (and probably still does). Yes, I do feel for Alec Baldwin. I am sure many of those in the “system” he disparages probably feel the same way I do, because we are very much aware of how wrenching “divorce” pain is and how exhausting thedivorce process can be. His stuff is the kind of stuff we deal with every single day.
Some days, it gets to us.
But what Baldwin does not get is that those of us who practice family law, and those who adjudicate cases, and those who treat couples and children in a therapeutic sense through the courts, lay awake many nights fretting over the welfare of those whom we seek to help, especially the children that have become entangled in their parents‘ contentious messes.
What Baldwin fails to realize is that the very people he condemns are those that work hard within a system whose primary goal, day in and day out, is to treat parents and their children fairly. What he also may not fully realize is that more members than not of the family law bench in Los Angeles, along with the steady support and cooperation of the family law bar — the attorneys — are dogged in their pursuit to try to improve the way the system works. And it has improved in Los Angeles immensely since I started practicing family law 25 years ago, in many ways. For example, today, the courts’ preferred approach to custody — notwithstanding any extenuating circumstances, such as abuse or misconduct of a parent to a child, or a parent that has moved away — is a 50-50 proposition. The judicial officers then work backwards from that premise to devise the best parenting plan they can devise to benefit all parties. It did not used to be that way. Baldwin is lucky.
In fact, he is really lucky, because in some states, there are courts that would have shown little mercy toward a father who had left such a scathing message on his child’s voicemail — a message that left many of us to ponder: If it looks likes a duck, and walks like a duck…
“All behavior is consistent,” according to Baldwin’s recollection of what his parenting class therapist, Jane Shatz, (whom he regards as “one of the heroes of the story”) said to him.
Yes, I also find that to be true through my dealings with both men and women going through divorce.
I applaud Baldwin for wanting to share his divorce experience in what I believe is a sincere attempt to preclude others from suffering the same anguish. When he steps away from the rant against the legal community, he does attempt to help the Promise reader: his book is a long list of admonishments. Some of his advice is prudent; other points are off-base or what I consider misleading. For example, he suggests that court evaluators be “assigned blind, by judges from a pool of therapists”. I think I speak for many of us in the “system” when I say that, no, it is better to choose an evaluator best suited to the case, if you can.
There are points he covers in the book — points for which he could have included more detail, fuller explanation, and a more balanced rationale.
I am not suggesting that some of Baldwin’s complaints in his Promise book lack merit. For instance, does the family law court have its flaws? It does. Is the system overcrowded? Absolutely. Are evaluations sometimes slow in coming? Yes. Are more courtrooms needed to unclog the system — a system that is constantly backed up? Certainly. Are there some judges who ought not to be on the bench, and court-appointed personnel that fall short of what should be expected of them? Yes.
As to the flaws and congestion, the bench and the bar work tirelessly to refine and improve the system. Do we need more mental-health professionals to do custody evaluations; absolutely. But one needs a special constitution to do that type of work, and thus the pickings are slim. Although there are a few judicial officers who have not found their calling in family law or are burned out, the vast majority are hardworking, caring individuals who are willing to make far less money than being an attorney and who are sincerely motivated to help families and children in crisis. Indeed, I would stack up our California family law statutory and case law as well as our judicial officers and practitioners against any other group in the country. Our system is not perfect, but it is darn good and hopefully getting better. With mediation and Collaborative Divorce assuming an ever greater role “in the family law system”, those going through a divorce have choices as to how to proceed. And as mediation and Collaborative Divorce become even more popular, the family law courts should become less congested and, therefore, more available to those who need the court system.
Baldwin winds down his book ticking off the promises he has broken and promises he has made. He says, “I promised myself that I would write this book, to help people better understand the terrible and unnecessary pain that the divorce industry inflicts on those people who have had the bad fortune to enter this world.”
Interestingly, I made a promise to my readers when writing my book, Divorce: It’s All About Control — How to Win the Emotional, Psychological, and Legal Wars, in the hopes that people like Baldwin could stave off and/or deal productively with some of the battles that ensue during the divorce process. Its core message is to let the reader know, if he/she is struggling through divorce (and most people are), that they are likely dealing with a power struggle — a problem where control is either an issue or at issue. It also tries to help the reader take a closer look at him/herself to see what he/she may be doing to perpetuate the divorce wars, stay mired in the process, or carry the frustration and anger forward, long after he/she should have moved on. What I found during my research — and through my many years as a family law attorney — is that those who point the finger at others around them (e.g., it is always someone’s else’s fault) are often the ones who are most out of control. And Baldwin does a great deal of finger-pointing.
It sounds as though much of Baldwin’s grousing comes as a result of what it has cost him financially. In so many words, and in so many places throughout the book, he continues to bring up the subject, most particularly in reference to fees divorce attorneys are paid. When discussing the costs he incurred while dealing with what he says was parental alienation against him, “…judges in Los Angeles do not have the guts to stand up to the rapacious lawyers who line their pockets at the expense of men and women victimized by this very real syndrome.” This is not to say that one (or both parents) does not try to brainwash their child against the other parent. Whether you call that fact pattern parental alienation or something else, such bad behavior absolutely does occur. But who is Baldwin to say that the judge (all judges?) in Los Angeles are gutless when dealing with the family law bar and, thus, turn a blind eye to parents who are, in essence, abusing their children?
If that is Baldwin’s point of view, many of us practicing in family law, and the judges who worked for meager pay while on the bench (and who have gone on to serve as a “rent-a-judge” subsequently making the money they so deserve), should similarly resent the high salaries Baldwin is typically paid for his roles on television and in film. The difference is: if we do not like how the film or show turns out, we do not begrudge Baldwin for what he was paid to do his job, just as he should not blame any of us for charging for our skills and abilities, for our hard work, just because his “divorce show” did not turn out the way he thought it would or should.
Stacy D. Phillips is a co-founder of Phillips Lerner, A Law Corporation, which specializes in high-profile family law matters. She is co-chair of the Women’s Political Committee and a member of Divorce Magazine‘s North American Advisory Board. She can be reached at (310) 277-7117. View her firm’s Divorce Magazine profile here.
Stacy D Phillips reacts to defend the legal professions after reading Alec Baldwin‘s book “A Promise to Ourselves“. NOTE: This article is the perspective of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of DivorceMagazine.com. Read more.
December 09, 2008
|The Honorable Lawson E Thomas (1898-1989)|
Pensemos en los hijos primero – para ayudar a las familias envueltas en
disputas por la tenencia de los hijos.