The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process…

THESE JUSTICES WERE BOUND BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

By thefitparentsrights

…and the “liberty” it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. (citations omitted). (Due Process Clause “protects individual liberty against ‘certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them’ ”) (quoting *720 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 665, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 1446-1447, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851, 112 S.Ct., at 2806-2807. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to… to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); [and] to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925);…

Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, *721 “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” id., at 503, 97 S.Ct., at 1938 (plurality opinion); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (“so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”), and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed,”(citations omitted).

https://vimeo.com/groups/childrensrights/videos/156933029

Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Ask any civil trial lawyer in Florida how many days one has to move for rehearing of an order simply granting a motion for summary judgment, and the odds are good the lawyer will respond, “Ten days.” Pursue the matter further with the lawyer, and ask where this 10-day period is set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the lawyer will invariably point to Rule 1.530, which by its title governs motions for new trial and rehearing.

Rule 1.530, however, provides that a motion for rehearing must be served no later than 10 days after “the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.”¹ An order simply granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment; rather, it is a nonfinal order.² So, too, are myriad other orders entered by a trial court before final judgment. Attorneys in Florida nevertheless regularly file “motions for rehearing” directed to such nonfinal orders. Often they believe they must do so within 10 days. Sometimes they also believe that such a motion tolls the time to seek appellate review of the nonfinal order.

Motions for rehearing of nonfinal orders are not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.³ Noting that motions for rehearing are exclusively governed by Rule 1.530, the Florida Supreme Court has observed that “[u]nless the filing of a motion for rehearing to an interlocutory order is authorized by a rule of court promulgated by the rule-making authority, then its filing is improper.”⁴ Indeed, it is not unheard of for an attorney to file a motion for “rehearing” of a nonfinal order and subsequently be confronted with a response from the other side echoing the court’s language and declaring that such motions are unauthorized and improper.

Yet while the rules of civil procedure themselves do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to nonfinal orders, a trial court does have the inherent authority to reconsider and alter or retract such orders prior to the entry of final judgment.⁵ Rather than constituting a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530, a motion directed to a nonfinal order is actually a “motion for reconsideration” based upon this inherent and discretionary authority of the trial court.⁶ Despite this distinct and well-established basis for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, there still exists confusion among many practitioners about the differences between reconsideration and rehearing.

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that parties and the courts frequently use the terms interchangeably, at least in the context of motions directed at nonfinal orders. This is perhaps understandable given the lack of any rule-based authority for reconsideration of nonfinal orders; the articulation of the trial court’s inherent authority has of necessity come through the development of the common law. An attorney will, therefore, only be aware of the basis for reconsideration — as well as its effect on any subsequent appeal — from the case law.

Amicus brief that alienation is child abuse from Childrens Rights Florida

Common Law Origin of Motions for Reconsideration

Justice4Children ~ Family Law and Child Welfare Reform

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!

!! ATTENTION FLORIDA VOTERS !!

First Husbands Advocacy Group – Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE LEGISLATORS WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST THE FAMILY REFORM BILL:

FOR SENATE SB 668 NAY VOTES:

Abruzzo (D-Wellington), Braynon (D-Miami Gardens), Bullard (D-Cutler Bay), Clemens (D-Lake Worth), Detert (R-Venice), Flores (R-Miami), Hukill (R-Port Orange), Joyner (D-Tampa), Legg (R-Lutz), Montford (D-Quincy),
 Ring (D-Margate), Sachs (D-Delray Beach), Smith (D –Ft. Lauderdale), Soto (D-Kissimmee)

FOR HOUSE SB 668 NAY VOTES:

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.

Fatherless Day Rallies In Every State and Across The Globe!!

Our current system of resolving child custody disputes rarely considers either children’s needs from children’s own perspective, or current research on child custody outcomes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

View original post 4,025 more words

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2016 – SOUTH FLORIDA

While ten contested races sounds like a high number, it’s not.  In 2006, there were 16 contested races; in 2012 there were 12 contests; and in 2008 there were also 10.  Anyone remember the likes of Shirlyon McWhorter, Stephen Millan, Michael Samuels, Migna Sanchez Llorens, Bonnie Rippingile, Josie Velis, Gina Mendez, and Jose Sanchez-Gronlier.  Those were just some of the losers in 2006.

Here are your contested judicial races:

CIRCUIT COURT

Circuit Group 9 – Incumbent Jason Bloch v. Marcia Del Rey

Circuit Group 30 – Incumbent Rosa Rodriguez v. Daniel Espinosa

Circuit Group 34 – Mark Blumstein v. Renee Gordon v. Denise Martinez-Scanziani v. Luis Perez-Medina.  (Judge Gill Freeman retiring).

Circuit Group 52 – Rosy Aponte v. Carol “Jodie” Breece v. Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts. (Judge Michael Genden retiring).

Circuit Group 66 – Incumbent Robert Luck v. Yolly Roberson

Circuit Group 74 – Incumbent George “Jorge” Sarduy v. Elena Ortega-Tauler

COUNTY COURT

County Group 5 – Incumbent Fred Seraphin v. Milena Abreu

County Group 7 – Incumbent Ed Newman v. Lizzett Martinez

County Group 15 – Ruben Yury Alcoba v. Linda Luce (Judge Judith Rubenstein retiring).

County Group 35 – Incumbent Wendell Graham v. Antonio “Tony” Jimenez

ELECTED WITHOUT OPPOSITION …..

Congratulations to the following 17 Judges/former Judge who have been elected to a six year term with an annual salary of $146,080 (Circuit Court) and $138,020 (County Court):

CIRCUIT

John Schlesinger
Rodolfo “Rudy” Ruiz
Scott Bernstein
Bertila Soto
John Thornton
Jennifer Bailey
Barbara Areces
David Young* (former Judge)
William Thomas
Milt Hirsch
Samantha Ruiz Cohen
Nushin Sayfie
Monica Gordo

COUNTY

Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson
Carroll Kelly
Diana Vizcaino
Laura Anne Stuzin

FERNANDEZ RUNDLE & MARTINEZ BOTH REELECTED

Also elected without opposition were State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle and Public Defender Carlos Martinez.  For Carlos, who was first elected in 2008, this is his third term.  For Kathy, who is 66 years young, this is her seventh term.  She took over for Janet Reno in 1993 when President Clinton names Reno as Attorney General.  She was then elected in 1994 and reelected six more times.  Is this her final term?  What do you think?

NORTH OF THE BORDER

One note about the happenings in Broweird.  Our longtime colleague, ASA Abbe Rifkin, has qualified to run in Group 15 against three other candidates, including Incumbent Judge Matthew Destry.

A lot of movement has taken place over the past few days in both the County Court and Circuit Court judicial races.

Circuit Judge (Miami-Dade County) Circuit / Group Candidate Status 11 / 3 Schlesinger, John C. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 6 Ruiz II, Rodolfo Armando (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 9 Bloch, Jason Edward (NOP)  *Incumbent Active        Del Rey, Marcia  (NOP) Active      11 / 10 Bernstein, Scott  (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 12 Soto, Bertila A. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 20 Thornton Jr., John W. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 28 Bailey, Jennifer D. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 30 Rodriguez, Rosa I. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 32 Areces, Barbara  (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 34 Blumstein, Mark  (NOP) Active        Gordon, Renee  (NOP) Active        Jimenez, Antonio G. (NOP) Active        Martinez-Scanziani, Denise  (NOP) Active        Perez-Medina, Luis  (NOP) Active      11 / 39 Young, David Haris (NOP) Active      11 / 40 Thomas, William L. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 41 Hirsch, Milton “Milt”  (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 45 Cohen, Samantha Ruiz (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 52 Breece, Carol “Jodie” (NOP) Active        Ortega-Tauler, Elena  (NOP) Active        Perez-Ceballos, Raul Alberto (NOP) Active        Rodriguez-Fonts, Oscar  (NOP) Active      11 / 59 Sayfie, Nushin G. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 62 Gordo, Monica  (NOP)  *Incumbent Active      11 / 66 Luck, Robert Joshua (NOP)  *Incumbent Active        Roberson, Yolly  (NOP) Active      11 / 74 Sarduy, George “Jorge” A. (NOP)  *Incumbent Active  11 / 76 Eig, Spencer  (NOP)  *Incumbent Active

Florida Division of Elections, Room 316, R.A. Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-0250, 850.245.6200

Source: JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG: JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2016 – UPDATE

Related articles

• Miami-Dade County Family Courthouse Violations and PTSD: What Is “Legal Abuse Syndrome”?
• A Year Without My Daughter Zoraya. Here’s to you Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr.
• Are Family Law Judges Fit For Purpose?
• Apply The Constitution In Family Law
• Judges Sarduy & Kelly Have Opponents, Judge Sayfie Does Not …..
• Judicial Election 2016 – the Lineup
• With One Judge Removed From Family Court, Koziol Seeks Removal of Another
• U.s. Legal System Abuse – Rise and Overcome
• Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers
• Divorced Co-Parenting Oxymoron

The Purpose of Family Court Hearings

There are various types of court hearings in family law and each serves a different purpose. Cordell & Cordell family law attorney Rebecca DeVincent joins DadsDivorce Live to explain the difference between each type of hearing, what the purpose of each is and what you can expect to happen at each one.

Source: DadsDivorce Live: The Different Types Of Family Law Hearings

Sole custody should not be the norm following divorce or separation.

Reining in Our Nation’s Family Courts

Small-government conservatives have largely overlooked the fact that no branch of government other than the tax authorities intrudes more forcefully and intimately into the lives of Americans than do our nation’s family courts. And that where there is forceful intrusion, there is political opportunity — and danger for either party, if it allows the other to grab and run with the issue of family-court reform.

These courts routinely redistribute enormous amounts of wealth, destroy small businesses, mandate when and where parents can see their own children, order people to vacate their homes simply on the request of their former spouse, order people to sell their homes (sometimes unavoidably in an asset division, but often not), and even dictate whether they can change their careers by holding them to a demanding child-support order that could not be obeyed during a temporary decrease in income. 

Even worse is the negative impact they’re having on millions of children across our nation. The family courts continue to award sole custody to one parent after separation or divorce, ignoring the proven harm sole custody does to children compared with shared parenting (joint physical custody). And where does this authority come from?

A so-called “award” of sole custody to one parent is actually the removal of constitutionally protected parental rights from the other parent without any demonstration of a compelling state interest if both parents are fit.

Despite what many believe, shared parenting is uncommon. In fact, family courts award sole custody, usually to the mother, in over 80 percent of child-custody cases. Fortunately, nearly 20 states are now considering shared-parenting legislation to reform our family courts. Utah just passed such legislation.

Last year was a watershed for our understanding that shared parenting is best for children after parents separate or divorce. For instance, the widely respected psychologist Richard Warshak published a review of three decades of child-development research, and his conclusions were endorsed by 110 experts around the world — most importantly, his conclusion that “shared parenting should be the norm for parenting plans for children of all ages, including very young children.”

Later in the year, about 100 child-development experts met in Bonn under the auspices of the International Council on Shared Parenting and concluded: “There is a consensus that shared parenting is a viable post-divorce parenting arrangement that is optimal to child development and well-being, including for children of high-conflict parents.”

Courts must work toward a shared parenting norm – Miami Herald

“More Family Court Inspired Violence?”

Here’s the Miami herald‘s take on the topic ~

Recently, I got an interesting press release from the National Parents Organization, which said the organization believes “… that a powerful measure to reduce the number of mass shootings is going unexplored.”That sentence caught my attention and I read on: According to the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, “The most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fatherless families, in turn, are caused in part by family courts that exclude fathers from post-divorce parenting. By instituting shared parenting after divorce or separation, fathers would be allowed to continue to show their sons the right way to grow into manhood.”

It has always baffled me that the bulk of the parenting seems to be placed on the mother whenever there is a divorce or separation. Many women who go through this trying time, must raise their children with a cut in income and/or a change in their lifestyle. Many, who had never worked outside the home, find themselves in the job market when often their only skills have been as stay-at-home moms. It is a rude awakening when this happens to a family — especially where there are male children involved.

Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding their child…

…IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

http://www.facebook.com/StandUpForZoraya

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 allow the state to protect children when they are truly in jeopardy. But this law requires specific findings to be produced to overcome the fundamental right parents would have. It takes away the leeway that currently exists for state agencies to act arbitrarily.

To pass this legislation, it will require Passage through certain committees. The individuals who chair these committees decide what bills get discussed, and thus passed through to the house for a vote. So this next step is critical to the life of this effort for 2016 and 2017.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parental Alienation – Miami, Florida

http://www.facebook.com/ParentalAlienationMiamiFlorida

The Injustice of the Family Court System 
World4Justice ~ Justice4Children Presents…
A Worldwide Event! 

W r i t e  O N E  L e t t e r

The Purple Keyboard Campaign For Family Justice Reform

The injustice of the Family Court System, and it’s agencies that are supposed to help children, are failing people on a daily basis and and in turn jeopardizing society as a whole! WE THE PEOPLE,

hereby dedicate ourselves and our efforts to the creation of a family law system, legislative system, and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by divorce, and the breakup of a family or establishment of paternity. It is our belief through our involvement and dedication, we can have a positive effect on the emotional and psychological well-being of children. 

• We believe equal, shared parenting time or joint custody is the optimal custody situation. 
• We believe the best parent is both biological parents. 
• We believe grandparents should have rights and access to their grandchildren. 
• We believe gender bias should be eliminated from family law and from future legislation. 
• We believe BOTH biological parents should be responsible for the emotional and psychological well-being of their children, as well as financially responsible. 
• We believe in the concept of fairness and equity in support for ALL families; and, that all children involved in a blended family should have equal rights, and do deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law. 
• We believe child support orders should be reasonable, realistically reflect the cost of the children’s basic needs, and reflect the relative parenting contribution of both parents in a shared parenting plan. 
• We believe when parents are given equal rights, equal responsibility follows; when parents have equal access to their children and support levels are reasonable and reflect the true cost of raising a child, parents will comply with court orders. 
• We believe when equity is created in our laws, the conflicts inherent in divorce situations dissolve and that, in the end, this is the greatest gift which we, as parents, could possibly bestow on our children.
  

  

  Parental Alienation is CHILD ABUSE

  

The Injustice of the Family Court System

http://www.facebook.com/ChildrensRightsMiami

CALL TO ACTION
Contact three Legislators via e mail IMMEDIATELY.

What should I write?

Here is some suggested Language for your e-mail. Add edits as needed to personalize if desired. But remember – keep it short and to the point. Lengthy e mails lose their power because they are not likely to be read by the Representative or their staff. 

Subject Line: Committee Chair – 

Please Support Parental Rights

Body:

Dear Rep. (Their Last Name),

This e mail is to express my strong support for Parental Rights. I support it because I believe that Parents should have a fundamental right to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children.

If this important issue has been assigned to the committee that you currently chair. I respectfully ask that you allow Parental Rights to be discussed and voted on in your committee.

I look forward to seeing the Parental Rights Bill passed as Law this year! 

Sincerely, (Your Name)

Also extend your gratitude to those supporting Parental Rights by sending a thank you note via e mail.

For The Cause of Liberty,   Jim & Patti Sullivan Florida State Coordinators  jsullivan@parentalrightsfl.org

PURPLE KEYBOARD CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE IN FAMILY COURTS

Related articles

• Bill of Rights
• Presumptive joint custody
• The Campaign for Equal Parenting Starts With You.
• U.S. Attorney General says homeschooling is not a fundamental right
• Update: Parental Rights Amendment Inclusive of Parents with Disabilities
• Missouri moving to protect parental rights from federal tyranny over medicine, education and discipline of children
• End of PARENTAL RIGHTS?? Thanks Scalia
• Miami-Dade County Family Courthouse Violations and PTSD: What Is “Legal Abuse Syndrome”?
• 50+ State Lawmakers Support Child Custody Law Reform
• Democracy Starts When You Take a Stand~~> #StandupforZoraya #SayHerName

Child Custody Arrangements News

Research

child custody arrangements

View original post