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

Divorce can turn lovers into warriors and children into refugees

Start Here!
by infamilycourt

Save children and families being decimated by American Family Courts. (civilrightsinfamilylaw.wordpress.com)

Abusive and manipulative mother informed of son’s rights and choice to live with his father. (childrensrightsflorida.wordpress.com)

When the family court dysfunction further adds to the litigant’s burden (standupforzoraya.wordpress.com)

News Media Investigates ‘fraud’ in Family Court (childrensrightsflorida.wordpress.com)

Hey Family Court!! You are disabling me by the severity of your denial of contact with my child. Here’s the medical evidence. (care2.com)

“Every parent, regardless of the relationship (or lack of one) that existed at the time the child was conceived, has a responsibility to provide financial support for their child.”

Re-blogged from ~
Parenting Together….Living Apart

In working to reforming our current system, I meet great people on a daily basis who see unfairness.

I am not alone in this, of course.

Today’s post is from a Division of Child Support case worker in a neighboring state who has contacted me several times concerning South Dakota’s unfair custody laws. She asked to post anonymously as she believes she could lose her job if her superiors knew of her stance. So I post this, humbled she would take that risk and grateful for her insights. I believe you will be too.

This is from the front lines of child support and custody in South Dakota and neighboring states. Our anonymous writer today works with custody and child support on a daily basis.

Here is her unedited letter:

“I am a Division of Child Support Caseworker in a state bordering South Dakota. As such, I speak with other caseworkers in SD and nearly all other states in the US every day, and know there are very few options for “non-custodial” parents who are being denied equal access to their children, unless they are fortunate enough to be able to afford a long and expensive custody battle, which is extremely rare, especially in cases where the parents were never married.

While your group needs to pursue one issue at a time, your particular issue being custody and visitation arrangements after a divorce, I hope that you will also pursue shared parenting and child support arrangements for parents who were never married, as this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed and rectified.

Before continuing, I will say that I, and all DCS caseworkers, recognize that the “non-custodial” (and we don’t like that term) parent may be the mother rather than the father. In most cases, however, the NCP is dad and the CP is mom, so please forgive my use of general terms such as “she” and “he”. I use them for the sake of simplicity, not out of a lack of respect or understanding that mothers do sometimes get the raw end of the deal, along with their children.

In every state in this country, the child support system is not only broken, but is in desperate need of repair. It is unbalanced and very often unfair. The child support calculation is based on the income of both parents, in every state, although I will admit there could be a state or two that does not do it this way and I am just not aware.

In most states, if either parent is unemployed but not disabled, they are presumed to be capable of working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, so their income is imputed at $1275 per month. Following this calculation, if mom is willingly unemployed and dad is employed full time, making a mere $10 an hour, dad has a child support obligation of $357 per month for one child. (I got this number from SD’s child support calculator website and it is accurate.)

That is a fact. But, should dad, making $10 an hour really be forced to pay $357 to someone who is not willing to work? Where is mom’s responsibility in this? In these situations, mom (unless she is actually working 40 hours a week for minimum wage, which is rare), is receiving food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance, so she is sitting back, living a meager life and doing nothing to improve the lives of her children, and not having to lift a finger to do it. In the meantime, dad is working hard and still can’t afford to keep the lights on in his own home.

Most of the dads I speak to are willing to pay the child support, despite the financial stress. They understand that there is a little person out there who needs their help, and they are okay with that. In many of these cases, dad has not seen his child even once since the relationship with his child’s mother demised, and he has no recourse other than to hire a lawyer to get a visitation order. The first problem with this is that dad, making $10 an hour and paying $357 a month in child support has no money left over for to hire a lawyer. The second problem with this is that, even when he does and gets the order, mom can still deny the visitation and there will be no consequences to her for doing so. Sure, dad can take her back to court again, and the judge will tell her to behave, but if she doesn’t, nothing will happen in SD. Dad and the kids are still denied access to one another.

Approximately 2 years ago, the state of Illinois passed legislation that actually puts repercussions in place for CPs that refuse to follow the Illinois State Visitation Guidelines. If the CP denies access to the children to the NCP, her driver’s license can be restricted, and not be reinstated until she complies. What a novel idea. I am beside myself, wondering why every state has not enacted this legislation. We restrict, suspend, or revoke the driver’s licenses (and other licenses) of NCPs when they don’t pay the child support, even when they are unwillingly unemployed, yet we allow CPs to use their children as weapons against NCP, regardless of whether he is paying.

I had two office visits today, both from dads who are doing the best they can and still are being denied access to their children, simply because mom decided she doesn’t like them anymore. The first has a 5 year old daughter that he desperately wants to have a relationship with, but hasn’t been allowed to see since she was 1 year old. At least in that situation, the poor child doesn’t know what she’s missing in not being able to see her dad. The second is much more sad, and it honestly makes me very angry. Dad raised mom’s first child as his own from an infant to 4 years old. In the meantime, they had a child together. They were together for another year or two. For the next several years, dad had BOTH kids – even the one that was not his – for weekend visitation. Not enough, but at least it’s something. Then, mom decided to pull the rug out from underneath dad, with no consideration for her children. Dad has now not seen either child for a year and a half. He and mom were not married, so mom has all the power, unless he can afford an attorney, which he can not possibly afford to do.

As we sat and talked, there were several times that I could see he was struggling not to cry. Ever since mom decided (for what crazy reason no one knows) to withhold visitation, both children, and especially his biological child, have been acting out in school. They’ve been bullying other kids and being defiant to authority. His biological son was finally allowed to see his half sister (that dad had from another relationship) after being denied access to her for a long time.

According to his sister, all he talked about was how much he missed his dad and how he is so happy he has all these things that his dad gave him, because it helps him remember his dad. Mom has the kid in therapy, that dad is paying for, and she is apparently oblivious to the reason why the kid needs therapy. I could tell her, but it would probably result in me being fired. Mom has 3 kids by 3 different dads and I would like to talk to her about that as well. Bottom line is mom is sitting back, collecting child support and state benefits, and not doing a damn thing to support her children, but she will be the first to call if a payment is a day late. This is just one case I am telling you about, and it’s not even the worst one; it’s just the one at the top of my mind.

The bottom line is this. We need to have state agencies that provide free services for NCPs to have fair and equal access to their children. We already have state agencies that help people who make no contribution themselves collect child support, and we are screwing kids and NCPs in the process. That is not acceptable in any state. I hope your legislature – and mine – will figure that out. Good luck and God Bless to you and your children.

All that being said, I hope all the NCPs (I really hate that term) understand that your CS case worker is not against you. We are forced to support the order, whatever that may entail. We have no power to help you with anything else, but we really would like to. God bless and God speed to you and your children.”

Stop The War On Dads No parents should have to go through this

About this community

Invite people ~ Share this community

The father’s rights movement isn’t an anti-mom or anti-woman movement; it’s an anti-unfairness movement. Our aim is to champion the cause of equal parenting, family law reform and equal contact for divorced/separated parents with their children. The fathers’ rights movement is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children’s mother—either after divorce or as unwed fathers, and the children of the terminated marriage. The movement includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law. Most of the members of the fathers’ rights movement had little prior interest in the law or politics. However, as they felt that their goal of equal shared parenting was being frustrated by the family courts, many took an interest in family law, including child custody and child support.

Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement. Objections to the characterizations of the movement as a social movement are related to the belief that discrimination against fathers moves beyond the social sciences and originates in government intervention into family life. The movement has received international press coverage as a result of high profile activism of their members, has become increasingly vocal, visible and organised, and has played a powerful role in family law debates.

The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” – Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder…. It is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” – Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

“The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made.” – Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

#StandUpForZoraya  #EndParentalAlienation #ILoveAndNeedMyDaughter

Read more

Parents and Children in America are negatively affected by “Family” Courts

Every year, millions of parents and children in America are negatively affected by “family” courts and the Departments of Children and Families (DCF) all across this nation, government institutions that actively participate in custody interference for profit at a massive scale.

As a family physician who deals with children, and adults on a daily basis, I am very concerned because I believe that these federal incentives are being misused to cause great harm to the American family, actually leading to a mental health crisis of pandemic proportions.

Miami, FL

Every 3 minute that passes a youth in America is attempting suicide, and 1 of them actually dies in the attempt every 2 hours. Nearly 2 out of 3 of these suicides are associated with these federal incentives, misused to intentionally interfere with the custody of children for profit. Custodial interference in the past year is associated with an increased risk for suicidal ideation of up to 4.5 times the norm, a 350% increase vs children without this history.

Making custodial interference, a.k.a. Parental Alienation, one of the most important preventable factors to decrease suicides in our youths. “Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24. (2013 CDC WISQARS). More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED.”

A similar picture presents with our veterans, who are committing suicide at an incredibly alarming rate of almost 1 suicide every hour. Some studies estimate that anywhere between 1 to 2 of every 3 of these suicides are associated with custodial interference which are motivated by these financial Federal incentives. Many of these victims have not even seen active combat, so they can not be attributed to war.

Color of Law Violation Form

JUL22  Miami Rally for Parents’ day weekend

400 N Miami Ave, Miami, FL 33128-1813, United States

Show Map – Find Tickets — www.parentalrightsclassaction.com

According to the USA Today, “suicide surpassed war as the military’s leading cause of death…suicide outranked war, cancer, heart disease, homicide, transportation accidents and other causes as the leading killer, accounting for about three in 10 military deaths” in 2013 and 2014.Suicide Research

This is a totally preventable mental health crisis, which is costing Americans at least $444 billion a year, and which is the 4th leading cause of death among 10 to 54 years old in America as of 2016.

Please, join us in rallies all over this nation on July 22, 2016, Parents’ Day Weekend. We need your help putting a stop to state-sponsored custodial interference incentives known as Title IV-D and Title IV-E of the social security, which are behind the destruction of our families today:

Thanks for your time and attention!

Regards,
Mario Jimenez, M.D., B.S.E.E.
The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

Florida Senate Candidate for District 40
www.VoteMario.Us, www.VoteFamily.Us, www.VoteFamilia.Us

Miami Rally for CAPRA (Constitutional Association of Parental Rights Advocates) Class Action Lawsuit on July 22, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Click here for directions to event location in front of US District Court Clerk Building at 400 N Miami Ave, Miami, FL 33128 

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

Family Access-Fighting for Children’s Rights

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

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

Our states’ family laws are antiquated and need reform.

SB 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!

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:

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. 

ABOUT US

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were promised to each of us by our founding fathers. And the resulting legal system was intended to protect …

 

CONTACT US

Family Law Reform’s officers are Floridians who have been personally affected by the state’s outdated family laws, and believe that the laws need to …

BLOG – MOST RECENT POSTS

• SB 668 PASSES THE HOUSE FLOOR AND HEADS TO GOVERNOR for SIGNATURE
• Palm Beach Post: Alimony changes get OK from Florida Senate
• SENATE BILL 668 PASSES on the Senate Floor
• SENATE BILL 668 PASSES CONTACT GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT NOW
• SENATE BILL 668 PASSES FINAL SENATE COMMITTEE

FOX 13 VIDEO

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

    • Message from Alan Frisher – We Haven’t Won Yet – Contact Your Representatives

  • Thomas Batchelor of Bradenton, FL – Can’t retire TAKE 21:56

  • Florida Alimony Reform – Introduction Video by Alan Frisher

  • Channel 13 Interview – Alan Frisher discusses Florida Alimony Reform

    • Thomas Batchelor of Bradenton, FL – Can’t retire & must support ex-wife before his own children

  • 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

    • Florida Alimony Reform – Video Update on September 5, 2012

  • 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

    

Related articles

• Petition to Governor Rick Scott ~ Please sign Florida’s Family Law Reform Bill
• Tampa Tribune Article – Eliminate Legal Representation in Family Courts
• Breadwinning Women Are Driving Alimony Reform
• Tell the American Bar Association Why You Read This Blog
• How Much is Too Much Child Support?
• Alimony Bills are working their way through the Florida Legislature!
• AWESOME NEWS – Family Law Reform, Inc.
• Family Court Stress Disorder (PTSD)…
• Hold Family Courts Accountable
• Judicial Accountability for Court Ordered Parental Alienation

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