Judges make life-altering decisions every day. Whether through rulings in individual cases or through the establishment of case law, judges intimately impact the life of every American.
As a matter of public safety it is crucial to ensure that judges are making decisions free of corruption, cronyism, and bias.
The main line of defense against these evils are state judicial oversight agencies, which are charged with investigating judicial misconduct — violations of judicial ethics — and disciplining judges accordingly. The other core function served by these agencies is to refer criminal conduct to appropriate authorities such as an attorney general, district attorney, or federal agency.
But these judge watchdogs operate more like national security agencies than agencies responsible for overseeing public officials presiding over public courtrooms conducting the public’s business. The agencies withhold vital information about the conduct of judges, including complaints and private disciplines.
Why is information that would impact judicial elections and provide insight into the performance of judges being withheld from the public — including instances of actual misconduct that are being privately disciplined by secret letters?
To understand why we must take a look at the common beginning.
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.
Bring awareness to the corruption and fraudulent acts of Family Courts and Child Protective Services. Our children, parents and families are being abused, destroyed and in some cases, murdered while the APA maintains its “no policy” policy, which we believe contributes to the problem which consist with the corruption within the system that is supposed to be in the best interest of our children and families.
Parental alienation occurs when a parent consciously or unconsciously attempts to brainwash, or otherwise influence a child’s memories, perceptions, feelings, and relationship toward the other parent in a negative, unhealthy, selfish, or destructive way.
And this kind of behavior is repulsive enough.
But one of the most extreme, and increasingly popular forms of parental alienation arising in custody cases today involves the false allegations sexual or physical abuse against a child in divorce action.
And there is a reason for this: it’s a fast and easy way to get your parenting rights terminated and create unhealthy separation between you and your children during a divorce, even as court-ordered child-support keeps flowing.
Of Course, this is why within professional circles, false allegations of sexual abuse in a divorce action are commonly referred to as :The Nuclear Option.
Because with one simple, fraudulent allegation, your divorce opponent can not only inflict massive damage to your relationship with your children, but can completely destroy your life as well.
Background – The Rapid and Increasing Proliferation of Nuclear Warfare in Divorce
And According to medical, legal, and psychological studies (some of which I have provided links to under the “Resources” tab to the right), allegations of sexual abuse against a parent occur in approximately 4% of divorce cases, or 12% of divorce cases classified as high conflict custody battles.
WARNING: If you’re involved in a serious conflict over the custody of your children, statistics show your chances of being accused of molesting a child are greater than ONE in TEN.
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.
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!
Noventa años atrás el Tribunal Supremo declaró que…
“el niño no es la mera criatura del Estado; los que le crian y dirigen su destino tienen derecho, asociado con el alto deber, de reconocerlo y preparar [al niño] para obligaciones adicionales.” ~ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
Hace cuarenta años la Corte siguió esta línea de razonamiento al pronunciar que el…
“rol primario de los padres en la educación de sus hijos está ahora establecido más allá de toda disputa como una perdurable tradición americana.” ~ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Sin embargo, en el año 2000 la Corte abrió esta disputo de nuevo. Una ley en el estado de Washington le dió a cualquier persona la capacidad de anular la decisión de padres buenos en el asunto de visitación.
La persona solo tenía que clamar que sería “mejor” para el niño permitir que la persona tenga derechos de visitación.
Hubieron seis opiniones diferentes y ninguna alcanzó cinco votos (una mayoría);
El juez Scalia sostuvo que los padres no tienen derechos de cualquier índole que estén protegidos por la Constitución;
El juez Th omas fue el único de la Corte que indicó claramente que los derechos parentales reciben la misma alta norma jurídica de protección dado a otros derechos fundamentales.
El apoyo por un alto concepto de derechos parentales fue socavado por esta decisión de la Corte.
Hoy numerosas cortes federales rechazan tratar estos derechos como merecedores de protección al nivel de otros derechos fundamentales.
Es el deber del Congreso aclarar la confusión causada por esta decisión astillada.
…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).
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.
Why is information that would impact judicial elections and provide insight into the performance of judges being withheld from the public — including instances of actual misconduct that are being privately disciplined by secret letters?
Family Court Reform 