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

Family Access-Fighting for Children’s Rights

Parental Alienation Chart - 2016

Family Access-Fighting for Children’s Rights

ATTENTION ALIENATED FAMILY MEMBERS!!!

“THE ROLES OF EXPERTS IN PARENTAL ALIENATION CASES”

Saturday, June 4th is the last day for new callers to register for our international support call seminar with Dr. Bob Evans. Regular callers have until Sunday, June 5th at 6 PM EDT to register. These are firm deadlines! To register, please email familyaccessinnc@aol.com.

The call is on Sunday, June 5th at 8 PM EDT. There are many different roles experts can play in parental alienation cases. Trying to understand all of this can be difficult at best. There are also many significant issues surrounding custody evaluations in parental alienation cases as well. And let us not forget the grandparents dealing with these issues too. Our June call will focus much on these issues as well as your questions that you submitted and Dr. Evans is now looking over.

We are extremely fortunate to have the leading experts in the world on alienation to do these seminar calls for us at no charge to us. This is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to glean from them and help us and our families. Please take advantage of these calls. They are a tremendous help.

The calls are now set up for all countries to participate. We have a local number for all countries except Canada. Canada uses the US number and info. We also Skype our calls as well. Looking forward to you joining us.

Source: “THE ROLES OF EXPERTS IN PARENTAL ALIENATION CASES” ~ Children’s Right Facebook Support Group

I need 10 Beta Testers. We are Justice for Fathers – and we have a new community that we plan on launching for Fathers Day 2016. Our goal is to reward all Members so that they can pay their child support and or other expenses. Justice For Fathers dies not bash Mothers. We are here to find a cure for Parental Alienation Syndrome – a form of child abuse. Join our Community as a Personal Mentor and start earning Big. As a gift, use the coupon code: DO THE MATH at checkout to get started for only $35. You must agree to refer 10 other paid members at any level. Join us at: http://www.justiceforfathers.com/join

Continue reading Family Access-Fighting for Children’s Rights

Exposed Corrupt Family Court Judge

Corrupt justice: what happens when judges’ bias taints a case?

Divorced mother Margaret Besen tells her five-year struggle to get justice, just one story in the hundreds of judicial transgressions across the US revealed in a Guardian and Contently Foundation for Investigative Reporting collaboration.

When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.

Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.

But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.

In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts.

“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”

Judges in local, state and federal courts across the country routinely hide their connections to litigants and their lawyers. These links can be social – they may have been law school classmates or share common friends – political, financial or ideological. In some instances the two may have mutual investment interests. They might be in-laws. Occasionally they are literally in bed together. While it’s unavoidable that such relationships will occur, when they do create a perception of bias, a judge is duty-bound to at the very least disclose that information, and if it is creates an actual bias, allow a different judge to take over.

All too often, however, the conflicted jurist says nothing and proceeds to rule in favor of the connected party, while the loser goes off without realizing an undisclosed bias doomed her case.

“Everybody should have the right to ensure the judge sitting on their case doesn’t have a conflict,” said Mary McQueen, executive director of the National Council on State Courts.

“It’s absolutely imperative that people have full faith and confidence in the judicial process.”

‘Explain, defend or apologize’

Hundreds of judicial transgressions have been uncovered during the last decade, with results that cost the defeated litigants their home, business, custody, health or freedom.

Some of the best-known cases involve judges who ultimately did suffer consequences for their behavior, including Texas judge Christopher Dupuy, who bullied four lawyers who filed conflict-of-interest recusal motions between 2011 and 2013. Attorney Lori Laird asked that Dupuy bow out in 2013 because she’d represented Dupuy’s ex-wife in the couple’s custody battle in Galveston. The judge responded by slapping her with 37 counts of contempt, demanding that she “explain, defend or apologize” for her motion. He later sentenced her to 220 days in jail, although she didn’t serve any time.

“It was the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever seen,” Laird told Contently.org. “It also caused great damage to both of my clients.” Dupuy was admonished in November – after he’d already retired and was sentenced to two years’ probation for pleading guilty to misdemeanor counts of perjury and misuse of government property.

But court critics say that one reason judicial violations are common is because they frequently go unpunished. When litigants ask a judge to back away because of a conflict, they risk being told no, then face possible retaliation, so many don’t bother. If a litigant or an attorney files a complaint with an oversight body, there’s only about a 10% chance that state court authorities will properly investigate the allegation, according to a Contently.org analysis of data from 12 states.

Judges state-by-state
Photograph: Contently.org

The analysis shows that a dozen of these commissions collectively dismissed out of hand 90% of the complaints filed during the last five years, tossing 33,613 of 37,216 grievances without conducting any substantive inquiry. When they did take a look – 3,693 times between 2010 and 2014 – investigators found wrongdoing almost half the time, issuing disciplinary actions in 1,751 cases, about 47%.

The actions taken ranged from a letter of warning to censure, a formal sanction that indicates a judge is guilty of misconduct but does not merit suspension or removal.

Actually removing a judge was a rarity. Just 19 jurists in 12 states were ordered off the bench for malfeasance, which is about three per decade for each state. And even that result is becoming less common, with only one removal in 2014 and three in 2013 among all 12 states.

The states examined – California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Georgia and South Carolina – were chosen because they comprise a representative sample from different populations and areas of the country and because they had matching data for the years 2010 through 2014.

California, which created the first judicial disciplinary body in the country in 1960, had a dismissal rate of 98%. It did not suspend or remove a single judge in 2013 or 2014 and acted just once over the last five years, removing a sitting judge in 2012. Colorado’s lone judicial action since 2010 was a suspension in 2013. Texas has not removed a judge in five years, though it has suspended 23 for varying lengths of time.

One discouraging factor is the secrecy under which these commissions operate. Allegations against a judge are commonly kept confidential unless a sanction of some kind is imposed. New York’s CJC, for example, is prevented by law from disclosing whether anyone has complained about a judge, discussing specific allegations, revealing what evidence might have been presented or what steps, if any, it took to investigative.

When conduct boards do act, the sanctions usually amount to an admonishment that may be embarrassing but costs the judge little.

Among those still on the bench after ethical violations are Louisiana judge Robin Free. Free oversaw a personal injury claim in 2010 by a man and his wife, Israel and Leslie Robles, who were hurt in an oil field run by Houston-based fracking contractor Integration Production Services, Inc. The trial had begun when the two sides agreed to a $1.2m settlement. As he mulled signing off on the deal, Free arranged for some post-trial R&R at Casa Bonita, a hunting and fishing ranch in George West, Texas, owned by the victims’ lawyer, David Rumley. He flew there aboard the Rumley firm’s private jet.

It wasn’t Free’s first ethical blunder. In 2001 he presided over a fouled-water case against Dow Chemical, trying to resolve the matter even as his mother was a member of the plaintiff’s class. Free is still serving on the bench after being docked 30 days pay in December and forking over a $6,723.64 fine.

Raoul Felder, the well-known New York divorce attorney, served as a CJC board member between 2004 and 2008, helping the commission sift through thousands of complaints. He came away from the experience perplexed by its decision-making.

“I wouldn’t say [the CJC] is toothless, but it’s arbitrary,” Felder said. “It can be unreasonably tough on judges who commit trivial offenses while going easy on judges who are really bizarrely out of the mainstream, doing things they shouldn’t be doing.”

Judicial discipline at the federal level is almost non-existent. A Contently.org examination of the most recent five years of complaint data shows that 5,228 grievances were lodged against federal jurists between 2010 and 2014, including 2,561 that specifically alleged bias or conflict of interest. But only three judges were disciplined during those years and each got the mildest rebuke on the books: censure or reprimand. None was suspended or removed.

The numbers suggest that at least some of these judges’ rulings did not pass the smell test: 4,168 of the dismissed complaints were tossed due to a lack of sufficient evidence, bringing up the possibility that some litigants raised valid concerns but failed to find definitive proof.

‘I’m on food stamps’ and he makes more than $500,000 a year

In the Besen divorce, judge Kent’s initial decisions were fairly typical for a couple in their situation. He imposed financial obligations on Stuart, the moneyed spouse, including $200 in weekly child support and $500 in monthly car payments. But when Stuart didn’t make the payments and the vehicle was repossessed, the judge did nothing. Nor did he act when Stuart honored only part of the support he owed, leaving Margaret, who was then unemployed, struggling to provide for her kids.

“Occasionally he paid $200 a week, sometimes $175, sometimes $120,” she recalled. “The church had given me vouchers for gas, and I was getting food from the food pantry. I couldn’t cash checks. One year I found on his tax returns he had made $528,000, and I am getting food stamps and trying to get groceries home on a bicycle. It was extremely humiliating.”

Margaret and Stuart accused one another of mistreating their children. Police and child protection service workers became involved. Kent ordered her to undergo a psychological evaluation, which slammed Margaret as a danger to her children as she was allegedly alienating them from their father. No abuse by either parent was substantiated.

Margaret won a court order of protection barring Stuart from contact with her children for a year. But when Kent issued his final decree less than six weeks later, he awarded Stuart full custody, while Margaret was allowed only supervised visits. And he ordered Margaret to pay back half the cost of her nursing degree and to sell her diamond engagement ring and split the proceeds with Stuart. The judge also reversed the support arrangements. While Stuart would pay $1,500 a month in maintenance to Margaret, she now owed Stuart $153.90 a week for the children, even though she was earning about $13,000 a year as a part-time aide in an assisted-living facility.

Margaret began to look into her husband’s dealings and discovered, through searching public records, that he and judge Kent had possible connections. In 2010, Stuart was appointed as the Suffolk County representative on a statewide commission for vetting local judicial candidates. That same year, an organization based at Stuart Besen’s Garden City law office, the Long Island Coalition for Responsible Government, donated $7,500 to candidate Richard Ambro, who got elected and became one of Kent’s fellow Supreme Court judges in Suffolk’s 10th district. In his role as Huntington’s town lawyer, Besen argued cases before these very judges. He’d entered a circle of judicial insiders.

“I’m in the middle of a large group of people who’ve got money and influence and who are all connected,” said Margaret Besen. “I’m not being afforded an opportunity to get a fair shake.”

Margaret had no way of knowing whether the connections she uncovered played any role in how Kent ruled in her case. But her concern deepened when she made an additional discovery about her house. Kent had ordered the Besen home, the most valuable marital asset, to be sold and the proceeds divided, putting Margaret in line to receive possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then she found an online listing offering the property for sale – with the judge’s wife, Patricia Kent, as broker. The home, which was listed for $749,999 with Patricia Kent’s photo and contact information on Realty Connect USA, is currently more than $15,000 in arrears on its property taxes and no longer appears to be actively offered. Margaret was evicted from the house in 2013 and lives in a modest apartment a few miles away. She has yet to receive a penny for her interest in the property.

Patricia Kent claimed she had never represented any of the properties her husband had ordered sold in divorce or other cases. “I have never been a broker for any of his houses; we’re very clear about that,” Patricia Kent said in a phone interview.

A reporter informed her of the agency listing with her information attached to the Besen property. She said her photo could have appeared because she was a broker with the same firm as the agent who did have the listing. “The only person who gets the commission is the listing agent that listed the property,” she said.

Patricia said William Kent was unlikely to comment. “I’m not so sure that he’d want to speak with you,” she said, adding: “When I see him, I’ll let him know, and if he’s interested he’ll give you a call.”

Kent didn’t call. And Stuart Besen did not respond to messages left at his office.

Scott L Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at UCLA law school, said the case raised “significant ethical red flags”, because of the judge’s wife’s alleged involvement in offering the Besen family home for sale. “Not knowing the details of how his spouse might have been assigned as broker, the idea that a judge might benefit financially from the sale of a property in dispute in a pending matter seems to raise a serious question of impartiality.”

Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University law school in Orange, California, said: “What judge Kent did here seems odd. The husband makes over a half million a year, she makes $13,000 a year, and the judge orders her to pay child support (which is tax free to him and not deductible for her).”

But when Margaret Besen protested, she found no relief. When she asked Kent to recuse himself, he refused. When she complained to the state watchdog responsible for investigating judicial wrongdoing, writing two letters, they blew her off. In a terse response this June, the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct reiterated its initial decision, stating that “there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify discipline”. When a panel such as the CJC declines to get involved, the plaintiff has little recourse.

This was not the first time a litigant raised questions about Kent’s integrity.

Donna Schuler, also a divorcing mother in Suffolk County, asked that judge Kent recuse himself from her case in 2011 after claiming his unwarranted delays and stalling had drained her financially. Schuler was also rebuffed when she asked the commission to step in and remove Judge Kent from her case.

A culture of judicial impunity

Critics of the Suffolk supreme court claim a culture of rule-breaking exists, pointing to a red-faced moment in 2007 when Marion McNulty, then the county’s top matrimonial judge, was admonished by the state’s disciplinary panel for aggressively fund-raising for her favorite charity, a women’s nonprofit, while on the job. McNulty went so far as to hit up attorneys for checks in the courthouse, a blatant violation of ethical rules.

But a culture of judicial impunity extends far beyond Long Island’s county courts. Indeed, even the US supreme court has been tarnished on this issue.

Justice Steven Breyer owned $215,000 in health-care stocks when deciding on the legality of the Affordable Care Act in 2012. Justice Samuel Alito’s portfolio included $2,000 in stock in The Walt Disney Co. in 2008, the year the court heard Disney, FCC v. Fox Television Stations. And perhaps most famously, justice Antonin Scalia has participated in the Bush v. Gore case, even though his son Eugene’s law firm represented one of the parties. In another case, Scalia remained in the panel despite having gone on a duck hunting trip with former Vice-President Dick Cheney while he was being sued to reveal the details of secret meetings he held with oil company executives in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After his vacation with Cheney was revealed, Scalia scoffed at the suggestion he was compromised and defended his decision to remain on the case. “I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” he said in a 21-page memo. “If it is reasonable to think that a supreme court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.” But Sen Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, implored Scalia to withdraw. “Instead of strengthening public confidence in our court system, Justice Scalia’s decision risks undermining it,” he stated.

In fact, US supreme court justices enjoy a special privilege: they are the only judges exempt from the federal Code of Conduct, which demands judicial impartiality and prohibits a jurist from presiding when he or she has “a personal bias concerning a party to the case”.

Restoring court’s battered integrity

Recusal issues often spur judicial complaints. But the watchdog panels that evaluate them, both on the state and federal level, are not courts and therefore lack the authority to review the merits of a litigant’s case. Even a substantiated charge of misconduct won’t change the outcome of a ruling or verdict; it merely opens the door for a new appeal to be filed, which for beleaguered litigants can be costly, time-consuming and often not worth it. Many do continue to fight. Others simply vent.

The online vitriol directed at unscrupulous judges, which began in the mid- 2000s, has built to a howling digital crescendo. Websites including The Robe Probe, The Judiciary Report and The Robing Room, which rate judges the way Yelp rates restaurants, are rife with railing as embittered, mostly anonymous plaintiffs rip into judicial decisions they feel were biased or corrupt.

Mounting criticism led to a remarkable development last year. The chief justices of each state gathered and declared that something had to be done. They implored lawmakers to enact legislation that might restore their courts’ battered integrity by forcing more transparency on their systems and holding judges accountable when they engaged in unethical behavior.

“Fair and impartial justice requires that judges act without regard to the identity of parties or their attorneys, the judge’s own interests or likely criticism,” said the resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices in January 2014. A judge should step away when there is “actual conflict or bias or other impropriety…or when a reasonable disinterested person would conclude that an appearance of impropriety exists.”

The decree was set in motion by a precedent-setting 2009 Supreme Court decision involving a dispute between two West Virginia coal companies that had done business with each other for years – until one went bankrupt – leading to a judicial scandal that inspired a John Grisham novel.

In an appeal of a case in West Virginia court, A.T. Massey Coal Co. CEO Don Blankenship spent $3m to elect Brent Benjamin, who ultimately provided the swing vote that overturned a $50m judgment against his company. Benjamin rebuffed repeated demands that the newly elected justice recuse himself because of his obvious conflict.

The US Supreme Court ruled that Benjamin’s bias was so extreme that his failure to step aside violated Caperton’s right to due process under the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The case, which spawned Grisham’s 2008 best-seller, “The Appeal,” underscored the kind of underhanded dealing that has stained the judiciary.

A further nudge for reform came last year when the Center for Public Integrity published a report on financial conflicts of interest. Among its findings: on 26 occasions in the preceding three years, federal appellate judges ruled on cases involving companies in which they owned stock or where they had a financial tie to an attorney appearing before them.

It also created a grading system to gauge how diligent each state was in collecting personal financial information from its judges, including stock ownership and outside sources of income, and how accessible that data was to the public. The center said that 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, failed its test. Six others earned a D grade, while two – California and Maryland – got Cs. California’s score, 77, the highest of any state, was seven points below the federal government’s grade of 84.

The report highlighted the type of conflict that can be most readily identified and that doing so requires full disclosure from the judges. Stock ownership, even if minimal, should automatically disqualify a judge from hearing a case, many experts believe. “If a judge owns a single share in a company involved in a case, he should recuse himself instantly,” says Rotunda, a leading law scholar.

It’s been more than two years since Margaret Besen has seen her children, who are now 12 and 16. There’s no money to pay the court supervisor, so they can’t visit. Nor does Besen have the funds to continue fighting. Kent retired shortly after making his decision.

“The hardest thing in my life is that I can’t be with my children and I can’t have an impact on my children’s upbringing,” Besen said over coffee at a Long Island diner. “A lot of people do not have any idea how the judicial system works or doesn’t work until you’re in it. We think we’re in a democratic society. We think we’re run by rules. But they are not being upheld by the court at all.”

This story was produced in collaboration with The Contently Foundation for Investigative Reporting.

Continue reading Exposed Corrupt Family Court Judge

Family Law Reform, Inc. is an organization advocating family law reform and divorce law reform.

Our states’ family laws are antiquated and need reform.

demand-family-court-reform-florida-2015SB 668 PASSES THE HOUSE FLOOR AND HEADS TO GOVERNOR for SIGNATURE

EMAIL: rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com

TEL: 850-717-9337

SB 668 HAS CLEARED THE SENATE AND HOUSE FLOORS!

English: no original description

SB was passed by The House Floor today 03/08/2016.

What happens now?

SB 668 now goes to the Governor for signature. After the Bill lands on the Governor’s desk, he will have 15 days to sign it, veto it, or do nothing. If he signs or does nothing, the Bill passes.

NOW IS CRUNCH TIME!!

Once again the Family Section of the Florida Bar has opposed our bill, even though the time sharing language does not contain a rebuttable presumption.They have already written Governor Scott asking him to, once again, VETO our bill.

The National Organization of Women (NOW) is opposed to our bill and will also demand that Governor Scott Veto the bill.

One more time, I must ask you——If you want alimony reform—-to:

English: Rick Scott, 45th Governor of Florida
Rick Scott, 45th Governor of Florida (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

CONTACT GOVERNOR SCOTT NOW RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT HE SUPPORT THIS ALIMONY REFORM AND TIME SHARING REFORM and SIGN SB 668 INTO LAW.

We have to be louder and more persistent than ever!!

Don’t wait!  Do this now and continue to do this on a daily basis until our bill is signed into law.  We need to show Governor Scott just what a force we can be. 

Greetings Family Law Reform Members: We need you to Contact Governor Rick Scott NOW: EMAIL: rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com TEL: 850-717-9337 SB 668 HAS CLEAR

Source: SB 668 PASSES THE HOUSE FLOOR AND HEADS TO GOVERNOR for SIGNATURE | Family Law Reform

    • Family Law Reform 2015 Legislative Update Webinar

    • Alan Frisher legislative update 12-08-14

    • Alan Frisher – alimony reform for upcoming 2015 legislative session

    • Alan Frisher Speaking at 2013 FAMILY LAW REFORM SUMMIT – Part 3

    • Alan Frisher Speaking at 2013 FAMILY LAW REFORM SUMMIT – Part 2

    • Alan Frisher Speaking at 2013 FAMILY LAW REFORM SUMMIT – Part 1

    • Channel 13 Interview – Alan Frisher discusses Florida Alimony Reform

    • Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL – Pays $4K in permanent alimony to lesbian ex-wife

    • Robert Rosenthal of Tamarac FL – Ordered to pay lifetime alimony at age 45

    • R.C. Lindsey of Stuart, FL – Has paid lifetime alimony for over 30 years

    • Caren Rose of Hollywood, FL – She and her husband can barely afford to make ends meet

    • Judy Michau of Broward County – Pays permanent alimony to her ex who does not work

    • Madeline Griffin of Brandon FL – 22yr old whose mom pays 65% of income in permanent alimony

    • Sue Stoeckel – Second wife of permanent alimony payer is afraid of having her income taken away

    • Nannette of St. Pete FL – Video 2 – Husband’s ex-wife is receiving permanent alimony since age 41

    • Jan of Clermont, FL – Boyfriend of three years pays permanent alimony

    • Dee Dee of Clearwater, FL – Boyfriend’s divorce held up for over four years

    • Nannette of St. Pete FL – Video 1 – Husband’s ex-wife is receiving permanent alimony since age 41

    • Tracy of Naples FL – Dating 10 yrs and will not get married

    • Eileen Flaxman – Her sister pays permanent alimony

    • Pippa of Naples FL – Husband forced to pay permanent alimony for over 20 years

    • Tarie – a WOMAN in Brandon FL – Pays 65% Gross Income in PERMANENT ALIMONY PART 2 OF 2

    • Tarie – a WOMAN in Brandon FL – Pays 65% Gross Income in PERMANENT ALIMONY PART 1 OF 2

    • I Remember by Alan Frisher

    • Florida Alimony Reform – Video Update June 13, 2012

      votefamily-us-2015

Any Inequality Is Disgusting

Fathers and Equality - 2015-16

A bill aimed at effectively ending permanent alimony is heading to the House floor after clearing its final committee of reference on Thursday.

The Judiciary Committee approved the measure (HB 455), sponsored by Republican state Rep. Colleen Burton of Lakeland, by a 14-3 vote.

Chiefly, the measure limits judges’ discretion in awarding alimony by providing guidelines for how much an ex-spouse should get and for how long.

The idea is that “no matter where you live, you can anticipate you will receive equal treatment,” Burton said.

Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center 175 NW First Avenue Miami, Florida 33128Her bill picked up a key Democratic supporter in state Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Coral Springs, a self-described “child of divorce.”

He said he knows from first-hand experience that “an indefinite financial relationship between two divorced parents is bad for the children.”Conference Paris Oct 10 2015 - Children of Divorce

Lawmakers heard from Tarie MacMillan of Wimauma, a 65-year-old woman paying permanent alimony for 16 years. Her husband, a former insurance executive, decided to stop working and lives on 65 percent of her income, she said.

Alimony “needs to be a formula,” said MacMillan, a jewelry dealer. “It’s so wrong for one adult to live off another for so long.”dysfunctional-family-courts-20151

Others continued to insist that the changes will be at the cost of mothers who opted to leave the workforce and raise children. After a breakup, they have trouble finding jobs and depend on alimony, some as their sole support.VoteFamily-US -- 2015

“There’s no consideration for a stay-at-home mom who has no work experience,” activist Cynthia Wheeler of Palm Beach County said.Demand Family Court Reform Florida - 2015

Wheeler’s recent appearance in Tallahassee resulted in her being ejected from a Senate committee when she refused to leave the lectern. On Thursday, she again spoke over her allotted one minute and until two sergeants-at-arms turned off her microphone.I ruined my ex - 2015

florida-judges-2015It’s the third time in recent years the Legislature has attempted to change Florida’s alimony law. A companion bill, sponsored by Republican Kelli Stargel of Lakeland, has not yet been heard in the Senate.

Another family-law bill moving this session is SB 250, sponsored by Brandon Republican Tom Lee, that would change state law on child-sharing. It would create an assumption that equal time-sharing for both parents after a divorce is in the best interest of a child.

Source: House alimony reform clears final panel – Florida Politics

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

What is Family Legal Abuse?

Family Legal Abuse ~ How do we, as its victims, define it?

Legal Abuse Family Courts - 2016
Entry #7 What IS family legal abuse? | The Butterfly Dad Blog
www.causes.com/causes/409526-children-s-rights
http://www.causes.com/causes/409526-children-s-rights

What IS Family Legal Abuse?

There are three types of government and/or court behavior that constitute family legal abuse:

1.) Family legal abuse is the set of human rights violations that stem from an unethical, immoral, and unconstitutional presumption on the part of judges, attorneys, and legislators that one of the two parties in a divorce must necessarily be treated with inequality.

2.) Family legal abuse is the set of human rights violations that result when overzealous social worker agencies seize children from good homes.

3.) Family legal abuse is the set of human rights violations that result when paternity fraud is encouraged, condoned, and incentivized by courts and legislators.family-court-abuse

Continue reading What is Family Legal Abuse?

Don’t Shoot The Messenger

Evidence Tips and Strategies PresentationDo you believe in Dads - 2016

  • Color of Law Violation 
  • DEPT OF HEALTH COMPLAINT FORM 
  • MANAGEMENT OF CASES INVOLVING COMPLEX LITIGATION 
  • 2012 – CV Linda J Gottlieb LMFT LCSW – PAS 
  • 2012 – Linda J Gottlieb LMFT LCSW – Resumption of Visits 
  • PDF – 2-23-11-F-PETITIONER PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 
  • PDF – 2-23-11-F-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TP MODIFY PARENTING PLAN, TIMESHARING SCHEDULE AND CHILD SUPPORT 
  • PDF – 3-7-11-F-MOTION TO DEVIATE FROM CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 
  • PDF – 3-25-11-F-RESPONDENT MOTION TO QUASH 
  • PDF – 5-5-11-F-NOTICE OF NON-JURY TRIAL 
  • PDF – 7-19-11-F-CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY DISCLOSURE 
  • PDF – 7-19-11-F-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND OR ENFORCEMENT 
  • PDF – 7-20-11-F-PETITIONERS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 
  • PDF – 7-27-11-F-ANSWER AND OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS.doc 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT1 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-REFERRAL TO THE VILLAGE-RANDOM DRUG TESTING 
  • PDF – 8-23-11-F-MOTION FOR TEMPORARY SUPV VISIT-REQ PARENTING COORDINATOR 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-INTERROGATORIES 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-MOTION FOR REFFERAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-MOTION TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SUPVERVISED VISITATION AS RECOMMENDED BY PSYCH EVAL 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-NOTICE TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION TO ORDER OF REFFERAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 9-2-11-F-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  • PDF – 9-6-11-F-ORDER OF REFERRAL TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION 
  • PDF – 9-28-11-F-OPPOSING PARTIES MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 
  • PDF – 10-3-11-FCS LETTER RE SUPV VISITATION AT LET COURTHOUSE 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING DAVID TO PARTICIPATE IN TIMESHARING 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 10-6-11-F-MOTION TO TERMINATE SUPERVISED VISITATION 
  • PDF – 10-11-11-F-MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF REFERRAL TO FCS FOR SUPV VISITATION 
  • PDF – 10-14-11-F-MOTION TO CORRECT FINAL JUDGMENT 
  • PDF – 10-16-11-F-FAMILY COURT SERVICES STATUS REPORT 
  • PDF – 11-4-11-F-RE WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS-DELINQUENT CHILD SUPPORT CASE 
  • PDF – 11-8-11-F-FAMILY LAW FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT FOR DMI 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE OF PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR VASSALL-DR FINLEY 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ADRIANA MENENDEZ 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ANA MESA 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR GORDON FINLEY 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR ROBERT VASSALL 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – JAIRO SERRANO 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ORLANDO GARCIA MS LMFT 
  • PDF – 11-28-11-F-MOTION FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
  • PDF – 12-1-11-F-EXHIBITS FOR RECONSIDERATION MOTION 
  • PDF – 12-1-11-F-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OR MOTION FOR FINAL HEARING 
  • PDF – 12-2-11-F-MOTION TO RE-ENROLL WITH FCS FOR SUPV VISITATION 
  • PDF – 12-2-11-F-NOTICE TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS RE SUPV  VISIT 
  • PDF – 12-14-11-F-MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 
  • PDF – DEC 2011 – ORDER UPON REPORT OF GENERAL MASTERGo Fund Me 1 - Stand up for Zoraya - 2015

But guess what…many Family Law Court Rooms are corrupted by some not so honest Family Law Judges AND Lawyers!

Innocent or not…In the blink of an eye…you can lose your kids, your job, your life savings, your inheritance, your house and or your mind!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading Don’t Shoot The Messenger

Stop The War On Dads

www.facebook.com/ChildrensRightsMiami
www.facebook.com/ChildrensRightsMiami

Alienating and targeted parents often return to court. They are frustrated and angry because they feel helpless, and now they are looking to the court for help. At this point, the parents usually can no longer speak with each other without shouts of bitterness, accusations, or silence. Judges realize it does no good to order parents to cooperate with each other, because the orders usually fall on deaf ears. Therefore, the court may have to take a different approach.thegameofchildcustody1

Courts that understand alienation will recognize the importance of identifying and hearing high-risk cases quickly. The longer the court takes, the more damage will occur to these families and children. Signals of high-risk cases likely to reappear in court and require quick intervention often involve: complaints about visits being withheld; children frequently not returned on time (later than a half-hour); threats to abduct the children; allegations of sexual, physical, and/or mental abuse; alcohol or drug abuse; a severe mental disorder interfering with visits or the children’s adjustment; and children refusing to visit. Judges need a mechanism to identify these cases and schedule a hearing as soon as possible. The court should not allow any unfounded delay tactics or continuances to prevent the case from proceeding as scheduled.judge2bused2bpsychologist2bas2bscape-goat2b-2bstand2bup2bfor2bzoraya2b-2b2015

In my years of experience with the court, I am frequently surprised at how often cases get resolved after I have given parents the opportunity to vent their frustrations and feelings. Many times, parents just want to feel like they are respected and heard. They are often very receptive to a little education about parenting and the issues I have described in my book. About a quarter of the cases that I see no longer contest the custody recommendations because they understand the reasons for the recommendations and have had an opportunity to ask questions to someone they perceived as impartial.The Family Court is WRONG!!

Courts may be wise to find a mechanism by which parents can be heard, ask questions and receive helpful education. This mechanism must be fair and monitored by the court for compliance. Some courts use a guardian ad litem or an employee of the court to offer parental education. Parents involved with mild cases of alienation can benefit from education and improved awareness about what they are doing and how it effects the children. Sometimes having the parents complete a psychological evaluation helps the court gain better insight into the dynamics of the case.Blog Profile - 2016

In cases of more severe alienation, both parents should be ordered to a therapist. The court should compile a list of qualified therapists willing to work with these families and the court, including qualifications for working with high-conflict parents and an understanding of parental alienation. Whether the children need to participate in the therapy should be left up to the therapist. The therapist needs to send monthly compliance reports to the court while maintaining the parent’s confidentiality. This process can be very helpful for high-conflict parents before they introduce a shared parenting plan to the court. While this process is going on, it is important that the court not withhold visits unless there is a question about the children’s safety. Withholding visits adds to the risk of reinforcing alienation because the children could believe there is really something wrong with the targeted parent.Support Judge Gorcyca - Parental Alienation is Child Abuse - 2016

In cases of severe alienation involving an obsessed alienator, the court must act quickly. Both parents need an immediate psychological evaluation, and the child or children need therapy because they will be very confused and may be expressing hatred towards the targeted parent. While the children are in therapy, they may be better off staying with a relative while having visits with both parents. Admittedly, there is no research supporting the recommendation that the children should be separated from the obsessed alienator while the parents are being evaluated and counseled. Logically, however, if the child stays with the obsessed alienator, he or she can sabotage the counseling and efforts of the court to resolve these issues. However, if the child is placed against his wishes with the targeted parent, the child could be frightened and rebellious. Thus, neither option is perfect. Nevertheless, it is imperative that the children continue to visit with both parents unless there is a concern about the children’s safety, in which case, supervised visits may be necessary. Finally, any investigations of allegations of abuse or neglect should be conducted while the therapy is occurring.

08b97-stop2bthe2bwar2b-2b2015
Source:
Breaking News. Stop The War On Dads are on Buckingham Palace roof.

Although the claims were dismissed, the jurisdiction obstacles were overcome. Unlike countless other challenges around the country, this court took jurisdiction over the state court issues, giving others a precedent for accessing federal court to raise constitutional questions. The adverse components of this ruling are now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. A expedited motion for exigent relief will be filed there at the Foley Square courthouse on Friday, June 17, 2011. We will keep you informed as you remain cognizant of the uphill battle we face. To put this in perspective, father’s rights cases feature a 100% failure rate in our nation’s history. Then, in the usual manner, our politicians wonder why we face so much father absence and moral decline in Father’s Day speeches.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

the mafia

How many broken fathers will it take before “we” reform Family Law?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This “Complaint” has immense practical value as a free information product for those victimized by domestic relations courts around the country. We parents are experiencing an epidemic in state control practices over our private affairs and exploitation of innocent children for profit. This document should be shared everywhere as a personal defense resource. It can be used to better understand the Family Court environment and as a tool for evaluating the performance of costly legal representation. In addition, it may serve as a background piece for seminars and public assemblies given the complex nature of these court processes. If this Complaint can save a parent-child relationship from abuse or demise, it will be well worth the sacrifice made by its author and sponsor. You may contact Mr. Koziol personally for this purpose at (315) 796-4000.Blog Profile - 2016

On a related note, a 45 page opinion was handed down in federal court in a case filed by Leon Koziol on behalf of “parents similarly situated” in “Parent v State” and its consolidated member case “Koziol v Lippman”. Originally filed on February 26, 2009, this challenge to abusive custody and support laws was held up for two years on a court issued ruling which raised the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a bar to federal court jurisdiction. Younger abstention was also raised, among other obstacles, by the many law firms defending this action.

Although the claims were dismissed, the jurisdiction obstacles were overcome. Unlike countless other challenges around the country, this court took jurisdiction over the state court issues, giving others a precedent for accessing federal court to raise constitutional questions. The adverse components of this ruling are now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. A expedited motion for exigent relief will be filed there at the Foley Square courthouse on Friday, June 17, 2011. We will keep you informed as you remain cognizant of the uphill battle we face. To put this in perspective, father’s rights cases feature a 100% failure rate in our nation’s history. Then, in the usual manner, our politicians wonder why we face so much father absence and moral decline in Father’s Day speeches.Broken Fathers - 2015

 See Complaint: (Click Here)

 

 STOP Court's DENIAL of REASONABLE Parent/Child CONTACT Judge Manno-Schurr is my 8 year-old Paternity – Family Court Case presiding Judge. The 5th Judge to preside over my simple case; an unwed…Read More

go-fund-me-1-stand-up-for-zoraya-20151

florida judges - 2015

COPY THE FOLLOWING:  Dear Honorable Chief Judge Bertila Soto:  I am disturbed about the injustice perpetrated on Mr. David inguanzo. I am further disturbed about the anger directed at this innocent man by Circuit Court Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr, captured…Read Moredo-not-re-elect-bad-family-court-judges-2016

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

TO:          ALL  PARENTING/CHILD  ADVOCATES

FROM:       PARENTING  RIGHTS  INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL  LEAGUE  OF  FATHERS,  INC.

RE:           PARENTING  RIGHTS  CONVENTION  REPORT LITIGATION  UPDATE

DATE:     JUNE 10, 2011

As promised at our national Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate New York on April 15-17, 2011, a Report has now been completed for review by attendees, supporters and various government agencies. Issued in the form of a formal “Complaint” filed this morning with the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, copies are being furnished to the U.S. Justice Department, United Nations, legislative leaders and various human rights organizations. We expect to complete this process on June 17, 2011 in Washington D.C. (Father’s Day weekend).

A copy of the 25 page “Complaint” is available for viewing at www.leonkoziol.com. Copies are also being sent to our followers. It incorporates the testimony and contributions of those who attended the April convention. However, names and personal details…

View original post 408 more words