Get this incompetent bimbo off the bench and soon – she has no clue and a horrible disposition – treats people with disrespect and extreme arrogance – is ignorant of the law and one can only wonder how in God‘s name she is on the bench. A horrible injustice to the legal system in Miami-Dade County. She should be removed, with pleasure. – View Detail
While it might seem completely justified, it’s important to be aware of the potential ramifications on the long-term health and well being of your child.
Children who have contact with their fathers following a family break-up suffer fewer behavioural problems, academics said today.
Youngsters who have a close relationship with their natural father after their parents split up are likely to be less disorderly, anxious or aggressive.
Researchers discovered that children who had infrequent or no contact at all with their non-resident fathers were more likely to externalise and internalise problems.
Of those children, 18% had no contact with their father, and 16% had contact less than once a month.
The research was part of the continuing Children Of The 90s project based at Bristol University, which has been monitoring the progress of 14,000 children in the Avon area since 1991.
Prof Dunn said: “There is a practical message here – parents should make a great effort to get on well after they split up.
“They should put their differences behind them for the sake of the children. The more contact there is the better the outcome for the children.”
Researchers interviewed all 162 children (initially at an average age of eight and a half) about their relationship with their mothers, fathers and stepfathers.
The mothers were asked to report on children’s behaviour, on whether they were aggressive or delinquent (externalising behaviour) or withdrawn, anxious, or depressed (internalising).
The research comes in the wake of an attack on the Prime Minister with a purple flour bomb by campaign group Fathers 4 Justice.
Rights
The group claims current laws are failing children and fathers and wants better parenting rights for fathers.
Prof Dunn said: “This research is the best kind of thing to support the case of some desperate campaigners who want more access to their children.
“Our findings were unequivocal: more frequent and more regular contact was associated with closer more intense relationships with non resident fathers and fewer adjustment problems in children.”
Prof Dunn noted that the amount of contact between a child and a father was related to the relationship between the parents.
She added: “This underlines the importance of parents developing a good working relationship over children’s issues and of keeping any problems in their own relationships separate from their parenting.”
The research showed there tended to be less contact between children and their fathers if the mothers had been relatively young when pregnant.
Today you hold the power. After the election, the power goes to the elected. While you still have the power, investigate the people wanting to represent you in Tallahassee. If you have similar values, vote for them. If not, DON”T VOTE FOR THEM. How can you find out?
Quite often, I write about parental alienation and family court bias. Both, of these things do and will continue to occur in its present form unless, something dramatic changes. When we set foot into a family court environment to decide parental responsibilities, we have certain expectations that the term “best interests” of our child will be applied in the fullest measure possible.
Within the family court realm, there are essentially three people who will ultimately have a hand in the decision making process of where our child will live. First, you have an attorney for Mom, an attorney for Dad and finally, the judge who will decide the merits of the case. Obviously, the attorney’s job is to advance their client’s position and most times isn’t worried so much about the best interest standard.
This leaves the family court judge. These judges handle a great many cases that range from criminal to civil to family and anything else in between. As such, it is unreasonable to think that they are experts in all aspects of the law pertaining to the various disciplines. Also, they have limited knowledge of the family outside of what is presented to them in the courtroom. As a result, this can cause a judge to issue an order that may or may not be in the child’s best interest.
When applied, the term “best interest” should meet the legal definition. If, it does not then it is simply a useless phrase that is coined by the administrators of these proceedings to justify their rulings. Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s take a look at this term and what it implies. Though, each state may vary a bit in its definition, they all mention the main points.
Though, there are too many aspects to list in this article however, I will attempt to highlight some of the more obvious and relevant ones used in determining what constitutes the best interests standard. To see a complete list for your individual state, you can do a search of the term. The following are as listed, not necessarily in order.
*The age of the child; *The relationship of the child with the child’s parents and any other persons who may significantly affect the child’s welfare. *The preference of the child, if old enough to express a meaningful preference. *The stability of any proposed living arrangements for the child. *The motivation of the parties involved and their capacities to give the child love, affection and guidance. *The capacity of each parent to allow and encourage frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other parent, including physical access. *Methods for assisting parental cooperation and resolving disputes and each parent’s willingness to use those methods. *The existence of domestic abuse between the parents, in the past or currently, and how that abuse affects the child. *The existence of a parent’s conviction for a sex offense or a sexually violent offense. *Whether allocation of some or all parental rights and responsibilities would best support the child’s safety and well-being.
As you can see, there are many different aspects that judges must take into account when deciding the issue of parental responsibilities. None of these should ever be taken for granted lest, the child suffer due to the absence of one of these considerations. However, not all of the above mentioned are equally applied and sometimes, are ignored.
Should one of the parents display an unwillingness to follow these guidelines of best interests, then allocation should be given to the parent who is a willing participant. However, this does not always happen. There are times when the judge in these cases have demonstrated a certain level of hostility and bias towards one of the parents, attorneys or both, Further, their lack of understanding family law to the fullest, ignorance of motivating factors such as, parental alienation is a fairly common occurrence.
It is for these reasons that judges should be required to outline the guidelines, according to their respective state and go through them line by line explaining why each one is in compliance with their orders. I believe, that should a family court judge be required to do this, the very essence of transparency would eliminate any erroneous ruling and the best interest standards would be fully administered and served.
Finally, family court judges must be required to take educational classes to learn about a child’s best interest, as it applies to governing law. Lastly, family law cases must be separate from criminal and civil courts to insure that the judges are not only qualified but, also specialized in these matters. In allowing these things to take place, we may start to see some semblance of “best interest” standard being applied.
By David Shubert
Please, help spread the word by sharing this article on your timeline, with family and friends!
We are parents, grandparents and children forced into a corrupt family court system that functions to drain our money, time and future.
When we speak up we are retaliated against by a system of lawyers and judges who take our children, our property and our dignity in an effort to silence us.
We are not fighting the fight they want anymore. We will not have moms fight against dads. We will not force children in the middle to broker solutions for adults. We are not asking. Expect Us.
For every good judge and lawyer, who helped, you will be praised. For every Anonymous whistle blower or Ghost Squad Hacker who helps us speak up and protect families and children, you will be thanked by the success you help create.
United States of America Of the Lawyers, By The Lawyers, & For The Lawyers… – Just The Facts –
– Lawyers Write the Laws – Lawyers use their legalese to construct laws that generally only a lawyer can understand or interpret – Lawyers Make the Laws – Lawyers comprise the majority of local, state and federal legislative bodies. – 1 Lawyer for EVERY 200 Adults in America!! – 1,143,358 lawyers. Law Schools are graduating 40,000 new lawyers each year as they have over the last 20 years. We are being overrun by lawyers, who not being subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, simply create work for themselves at an increasing cost to each of us. – Your Civic Duty – Work and your life are secondary to – Your Civic Duty – at about $8.00 PER DAY while the Lawyers & Judges are making HUNDREDS of DOLLARS PER HOUR! But you understand, after all the lawyers and judges do tell us that it is ‘the best system in the world…’ – All About Billable Hours – Confusion and conflict produce billable hours. Simple common sense decisions and solutions are almost extinct because they are in conflict with the billable hours required to support the ever growing legal profession. – Taxation Without Representation – Lawyers represent 3/10th of 1 percent of the population yet have an 80% representation in our government. Translation: The taxation of 99.997% of the American people is created, implemented, controlled, and enforced by .003% of the people: indeed a privileged class. – Lawyers & Government – Any wonder why the government is so wasteful and inefficient? The majority of lawyers in government have never had any experience in the operation or budgeting of a real business in the real world. And, in the world they did work in, they could earn more in a few hours than most people can earn in a week or a month and sometimes even a year! – 2 More Lawyers in the White House – Remember the Clintons? Remember the Scandals? Remember the National & Worldwide Disgrace America was Subjected to? Remember How Bin Laden Killed Americans at will BUT there was not enough evidence to bring him to Court!! – 9 Lawyers Decide How All American’s Live! – Nine Lawyers on the Supreme Court decide the laws, the morals, and the culture of 300 million FREE Americans? Arguably The Founding Fathers Biggest Mistake! – The U.S. Constitution – The Founding Fathers never had a clue how their masterpiece, The Constitution, would be a Cash Cow for the lawyers…
Ethics and practicing law have a fascinating relationship. I posted last week about how it’s silly to suggest that ethics requires lawyers (or anyone) to always tell the truth. In the comments, I wrote the following in a reply to a comment by Scott Greenfield:
I think the lawyer’s biggest moral (as opposed to “ethical” re the rules) conundrum is the question of whether the lawyer is lying to himself that what’s good for the lawyer is good for the client. Self-deception is the real problem, because it makes our lies to others feel like the truth.
Scott suggested that was an idea for a post. I agreed, so here goes.
Lawyering, despite the efforts of those who write the ethics rules, has a conflict of interest built in: what’s good for the client is often the exact opposite of what’s good for the lawyer. And lawyers, being mere mortals, are morally fallible, and they know it.
They have to get past that knowledge if they are going to at least sometimes choose to do what’s best for themselves instead of what’s best for the client. To cope with making that choice, they lie to themselves in order to believe that what’s good for themselves is in fact what’s best for the client.
Judges merely redirect the dysfunction of one parent as a means to achieve an equitable settlement without regard for children. Prospective lawyers to become judges practice under a code of ethics where they are only allowed to have regard their clients and not the children. A prospect practices under these rules of engagement for 20-30m years before a simple letter of appointment to the bench. They can in no way be expected to have regard for children after this indoctrination.
The code of ethics for those lawyers practicing family law needs to change before anything gets better for children.
Just know the enemy of your children are the lawyers and judges themselves.
The Children’s Rights Facebook Group now has over 18,000 Members. We’re here for Parents who need morale support, information, and more. Come check us out!
Antone (D-Orlando), Avila (R-Hialeah), Berman (D-Boynton Beach), Bileca (R-Miami), Bracy (D-Ocoee), Campbell (D–Miami-Shores), Clarke-Reed (D-Pompano Beach), Cortes, J. (D-Kissimmee), Cruz (D-Tampa), Cummings (R-Orange Park), Dudley (D-St. Petersburg), Edwards (D-Sunrise), Fitzenhagen (R-Fort Meyers), Geller (D-Dania Beach), Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill), Jacobs (D-Coconut Creek), Jenne (D-Hollywood), Jones, M. (D-Jacksonville), Jones, S. (D-West Park), Kerner (D-Palm Springs), Lee, L (D-Ft. Pierce), Mayfield (R-Vero Beach, moved to Brevard), McGhee (D-Cutler Bay), Moskowitz (D-Coral Springs), Murphy (D-New Port Richey), Narain (D-Tampa), Pafford (D-West Palm), Powell (D-West Palm), Pritchett (D-Miramar), Rader (D-Boca Raton), Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D-Tallahassee), Richardson (D-Miami Beach), Rodriguez, J (D-Miami), Rouson (D-St. Petersburg), Slosberg (D-Delray Beach), Stafford (D-Opa Locka), Stark (D-Weston), Steube (R-Sarasota), Torres (D-Orlando), Trujillo (R-Doral), Van Zant (R-Palatka), Watson, B. (D-Miami Gardens), Watson, C. (D-Gainesville), Williams (D-Tallahassee)
Remember to vote in the August primary and November general election!
First Husbands Advocacy Group – Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform
BRAVO and CONGRATULATIONS to this man. He is FREE of his alimony tether. We applaud your good fortune and wish you all the best in life and love. You are an inspiration to all other reformers.
As we had predicted … What a bunch of crap. No…we NEVER will respect nor “honor” any of you who are stealing from us via lifetime alimony.
Honor and respect has to be earned. Ya’ll are and will be pieces of shit to us…and the kids will know that forever and ever and ever.
Ask anyone who has experienced a divorce or child custody battle within Florida’s Family Court system…
…and at least one side will tell you that they got a raw deal.
RealNewsRealFast – Bringing Local News to You!
FLORIDA – For years, Fathers Rights Activists have fought for the courts to treat men as equals when it comes to time sharing with children.
But despite overwhelming progress with women and LGBT rights, men say the pendulum has swung too far, and now they’re being left in the dark ages of equality.
Alimony is another area of heated debate in family courts and in recent months both issues reached Lawmakers in Tallahassee for proposed reform.
Last September, Senator Tom Lee (R-Brandon) filed Senate Bill 250 which contained language that would direct judges to use guidelines based on the duration of a marriage and income, when calculating alimony. If the measure were to pass it would essentially put an end to permanent and bridge-the-gap alimony.
Lee later amended the Bill to include language that would create a presumption 50/50 time sharing by both parents, believing that it is in the best interest of the children.
We’re just inviting you to take a timeout into the rhythmic ambiance of our breakfast, brunch and/or coffee selections. We are happy whenever you stop by.
The Robing Room – Where Judges are Judged.
Why 
First Husbands Advocacy Group – Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform
Trujillo (R-Doral), Van Zant (R-Palatka), Watson, B. (D-Miami Gardens), Watson, C. (D-Gainesville), Williams (D-Tallahassee)
First Husbands Advocacy Group – Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform
Family Court Reform 