The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process…

THESE JUSTICES WERE BOUND BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
court-of-public-opinion-2015

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).

Continue reading The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process…

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.

Common Law Origin of Motions for Reconsideration

Continue reading Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Justice4Children ~ Family Law and Child Welfare Reform

AFLA LOGO 2 - 2015Judges 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.

Family Law Reform sm - 2016The 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!family court in focus - 2015

!! ATTENTION FLORIDA VOTERS !!

852e6-florida2bcommission

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

First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform's photo.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), First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform's photo.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), contact_rick_scott-sb-668Trujillo (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.
Mother's Blocking Access - 2016

Parental Alienation Awareness - IT IS CHILD ABUSE --2016As 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!!

FRM USA - 2015Our 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.do-not-re-elect-bad-family-court-judges-2016

A lot of movement has taken place over the past few days in both the County Court and Circuit Court judicial races.VoteFamily-US -- 2015

florida judges - 2015Circuit 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

dysfunctional-family-courts-2015Source: JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG: JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2016 – UPDATE

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

Continue reading The Purpose of Family Court Hearings

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

Reining in Our Nation’s Family Courts

familycourt25242b2Small-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.dysfunctional-family-courts-20151

cropped-votefamily-1-bannerThese 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. family court insanity - 2016

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