Trust Women? Hahahahahaha

#StandupforZoraya #SayHerName, Blogs Followed, Family Court Insanity, Fathers' Rights, PAS is Child Abuse, Petitions, Presidential Election

real-women-support-fathers-rights-2017#TrustWome?  Hahahahahaha – moms4dads

There’s a new campaign in town… First, we had to Listen and Believe. Now, we are told we have to #TrustWomen  Why? Because they’re women. And… because it’s 2016. Trust me, it’s still 2016, it’s true, I said it and I’m a woman, therefore it’s true.

Wait, I thought being sexist was wrong and I thought feminism is about equality, then why trust only women, why not everybody? I guess the next campaign will be #TrustMigrants, why not, right? What could possibly go wrong?

“It’s now or never for reproductive rights”

(Women’s reproductive rights, obviously, because feminism is about equality…)

Source: #TrustWomen? Hahahahahaha – moms4dads

Advertisements

Florida Governor Vetoes Alimony Reform Bill That Could Have Helped Families and Small Businesses

#StandupforZoraya #SayHerName, Blogs Followed, Family Court Insanity, Fathers' Rights, PAS is Child Abuse, Petitions, Presidential Election

FL Governor Vetoes Alimony Reform Bill That Would Have Helped Families and Small Business

what-happened-to-equality-20162Siding with a minority of liberals, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) yesterday vetoed alimony reform legislation that Florida’s GOP-controlled legislature had passed by a margin of nearly two to one, even though it was supported by 70% of Floridians. Scott’s veto was unfair, anti-family, and anti-small-business. But it thrilled some wealthy divorce lawyers, who hired high-paid “lobbyists with close ties to Scott” to lobby him to kill the bill.

Scott vetoed the bill even though sponsors of the legislation removed the very provision in it that led Scott to veto an earlier version of the bill in 2013 (the fact that it would have applied to pre-existing alimony awards, rather than just those set in the future). The bill would have “eliminated permanent alimony,” replacing it with a more nuanced “formula, based on the length of marriage and the combined incomes of both spouses, for judges to use when setting alimony payments.”

Under existing Florida law, people can be forced to pay alimony even when they are blameless and their adulterous ex-spouse has moved in with a lover. For example, in Baxter v. Baxter (1998), the wife “fell in love with a woman friend and moved with her to a mountain top in Puerto Rico. Although the wife’s friend ha[d] an income of over $100,000 a year,” the wife sought and obtained “$860 per month” in alimony. In Heilman v. Heilman (1992), the state appeals court reversed the denial of an adulterous wife’s request for alimony after she moved in with her lover, rejecting the argument that “the family’s emotional devastation at the news of the extra-marital affair” weighed against alimony. No innocent spouse should be forced to pay permanent alimony in such circumstances.Florida TFRM - 2016

Yet under Florida law, alimony is presumptively permanent, rather than for a shorter period, when the marriage is deemed long-term, such as a 17-year marriage. While alimony can play a useful role in helping a spouse get back on her feet after a divorce, that does not justify routinely or reflexively awarding permanent alimony. That is an archaic vestige of an earlier time when many jobs were closed to women, women were less likely than men to attend college, and the lack of modern appliances meant wives spent far more time doing housework than they do today, leaving them less able to financially support themselves.

To justify his veto this time, Scott disingenuously cited harmless language in the bill containing an initial “premise” that, absent evidence to the contrary, parenting should be shared equally by divorced parents, claiming that could somehow harm children. But this language was not really new: this provision was just a milder version of joint-custody language found in the earlier, 2013 version of the bill, which Scott never objected to on this ground. Such shared parenting laws are hardly unusual — states such as Iowa, Idaho, and Louisiana have a stronger presumption of joint custody. Even the liberal District of Columbia has a statutorily mandated “rebuttable assumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child.” (See D.C. CODE § 16-91).

Scott’s veto is also bad for small business owners, business formation, and job creation in Florida. As I noted in 2013 in the Tampa Bay Times,

Gov. Rick Scott’s veto of a bipartisan alimony reform bill missed an opportunity to improve the state’s business climate… . Florida courts have discouraged the creation of small businesses through one-sided alimony rulings that ratchet alimony up but not down. They are far more eager to increase people’s alimony obligations when their new business succeeds than to cut their alimony when their new business fails, even though both success and failure affect people’s income and their ability to pay alimony. Since most new businesses fail, this is a potent disincentive to taking the risk of creating a new business. Thus, Scott erred in claiming that ‘current Florida law already provides for the adjustment of alimony under the proper circumstances.’”

Alimony awards are often permeated with gender bias, a reality chronicled by Richard Crouch, a prominent family lawyer, in the Virginia state bar publication Family Law News. (See Crouch, Support Obligations in Mean Times: The Virginia Courts and the Recession, Fall 1992 Issue.) For example, the Virginia Court of Appeals denied alimony to a father even though his ex-wife made five times what he did, and he was the caregiver for the couple’s children, and instead ordered him to pay his ex-wife 40 percent of his meager disability pension, in Asgari v. Asgari [2000]. It is hard to imagine a similarly-situated ex-wife not receiving alimony for at least a few years. For example, in Calvin v. Calvin [1999], the appeals court awarded a wife alimony despite describing her as adulterous, “vindictive and cruel.” As Crouch notes, in Virginia family law, “sex is the difference that makes a difference.” Virginia courts also have shortchanged veterans in divorce cases.family-law-reform-demonstration-at-lawson-e-thomas-courthouse-miami-florida-1

In Florida, gender bias is also common in divorce court. But there, even women have been ordered to pay unfair alimony awards. At Town hall, Rachel Alexander notes that one Florida woman “was ordered to pay lifetime alimony to her ex-husband based on a 14-year-long marriage. Many couples who were only married for 10 years are now in their 20th year of alimony. Some didn’t have any children, or if there are any, they’re often grown.” The bias against breadwinner spouses built into state alimony laws and case law is more pronounced than the informal bias against men that exists in its courts.

As a result, female breadwinners, like male breadwinners, can be saddled with unfair lifetime alimony obligations. That makes lifetime alimony a threat to female professionals and business owners, not just males.

Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.

Source: FL Governor Vetoes Alimony Reform Bill That Would Have Helped Families and Small Business

So few in the Media will Expose the Judicial Corruption of Judges

Blogs Followed, Family Court Insanity, Fathers' Rights, PAS is Child Abuse, Petitions, Presidential Election

 

#ABC2020 (ABC 20/20) will expose Judicial Misconduct.21372-stop2bfamily2bcourt2bcorruption2b-2b20162

My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He’s Behind Bars Unjustly

Victoria FineMy father is 69 years old and is known for his dapper bow ties and for seeing the world in strict terms of right and wrong. And since March, he has been taken a political prisoner of the L.A. County Jail System.

So few in the Media will Expose the Judicial Corruption of Judges

corruption family court judges - 2016

Justice’s Blind Eye: Money Floods Judicial Election Campaigns

In rare public remarks last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the money involved in electing judges remains one of the most pr…

My Father’s Case Heads to the U.S. Supreme Court

Victoria FineRichard I. Fine vs L.A. County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca will determine whether it is legal for a U.S. citizen to be held in coercive confinement for such a long period of time — almost 14 months.

– Please Watch ABC 20/20 often and show your support to ABC for STANDING UP and SPEAKING OUT we need more true Investigations into the Corruption of our Government, our Elected Officials and our Judiciary. When sharing your story please add #ABC2020 –DivorceCorp - Judge says Family Court is all about the money - AFLA Blog 2016

Bought Justice

Dylan RatiganOur courts have as of yet been exempt from the same level of scrutiny as Congress and our politicians, but there is a pervasive, ongoing corporate attack on judicial integrity, and what we’re seeing is that a lack of aligned interests, secrecy, and corruption are eroding that system as well.

Judicial Accountability

Source: Exposed Corrupt Judge

When government fails, everyone feels the pain

State court: Domestic violence law unfair to gay couples

Family courts must submit to ‘laptop justice’

Filmmaker Was Documenting Abuses in Cps and Children Murdered Under State Custody Before He Died

Hold Family Courts Accountable

Judicial Accountability for Court Ordered Parental Alienation

Dr. Koziol Back in Manhattan Advocating For Court Reform and Family Rights

Maine Couple on ABC’s 20/20 Fighting Child Abuse Charges

Obama Sucker Punches Citizens United

~~ WARNING ~~: Family Court Can Cause Serious Risks To Your Health

“The lives of the children and their families can forever be changed by our action – or inaction”

#StandupforZoraya #SayHerName, Blogs Followed, Family Court Insanity, Fathers' Rights, PAS is Child Abuse, Petitions, Presidential Election

 

dysfunctional-family-courts-2015The Supreme Court’s Parental Rights Doctrine75aa1-youtube2bchannel2bart2b-2b2015Our nation has consistently maintained that parents possess a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit.
This belief has been upheld by our judiciary in numerous Supreme Court cases that reflect the American people’s longstanding commitment to parental rights. The excerpts below are drawn from key Supreme Court cases protecting the right of parents to raise their children. It is critical that we place the current Supreme Court doctrine on parental rights into the explicit text of the United States Constitution in order to preserve the vital child-parent relationship. Florida Parental RightsThe principles below are referred to as the Parental Rights Doctrine.

Case index:

· Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
· Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
· Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
· Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
· Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
· Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
· Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
· Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
· Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
· Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
· Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
· Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
· Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
· Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.  – Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)56248-parental-rightsThe fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. 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)keep-an-open-mind-2016It 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)· Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)

Project Fatherhood FL 11- 2015The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. —  Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children.  —  The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. – Wisconsin  v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)Amendment 14 US Constitution - 2015This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. – Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)DO NOTHING JUDGES - 2016Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural. – Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)UntitledThe liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in “this Nation’s history and tradition.”  – Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)

We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.  —  We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” – Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)

The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.  —  The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.  —  Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.  – Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life.
Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.  – Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)What happened to EQUALITY - 2016“The best interests of the child,” a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion-for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. —  “The best interests of the child” is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.  – Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)Due Process Right TFRM - 2016In 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 direct the education and upbringing of one’s children.  —  The Fourteenth Amendment “forbids the government to infringe … ‘fundamental’ liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”  – Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)Do not re-elect bad family court judges - 2016The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.  —  In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.  —  The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville’s determination of her daughters’ best interests. More importantly, it appears that the Superior Court applied exactly the opposite presumption.  —  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)fecfd-unfriendly2bfamily2bcourts

 

Children's Rights

ITS TIME FOR A WIDE-AWAKE RALLY!!.

You know, Abraham Lincoln was the first American President to bring equality under the law to our society, but he is also the first person to see how outrageous it was to harm another human being in such violent and brutal manners. Sadly when we see inside the control of our homes there is often a dominance struggle, which can become quite dangerous and even become the most dangerous place in the world for many of our children.

What if Abraham Lincoln was here fighting for the end of Family Crimes and acts of Terroristic Abuse against those unable to protect themselves, run away, or escape the insanity of their constant threatening life? What would you say to him as he wonders about the equal rights our country has continued to fight for all these years? Would President Lincoln talk to us about…

View original post 347 more words

When “Accused” Isn’t a Situation but a State of Being

Blogs Followed, Family Court Insanity, Fathers' Rights, PAS is Child Abuse, Petitions, Presidential Election

SAVE - 2015  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN2sbo7QsLAMUKFcpQU-aUGpiqddMDAi8Divorce Terrorism Act:
Accusing Your Spouse of Domestic Violence

By Karen Morris, Yahoo! Contributor Network

In this world of causes, there is one that seems to go unnoticed. This issue…Divorce, child custody, support and equality.

1dedb-family2blaw2b-2bfathers2band2bfamilies

With the annual divorce rate now above 60% nationally, we are still treating modern day divorce with antiquated and outdated state statutes. The statutes that are in place were placed there in the 1950’s!! What does the 50’s have to do with the new millennium?!! This horrible injustice that is perpetrated on divorcing parents by our courts must stop! Sure, they profess that they provide a service that is in “the best interest of the children” but after doing an enormous amount of research…I see that is doubtful at best.I ruined my ex - 2015

The modern day “divorce terrorism act” that is acceptable and recommended by some attorneys to their clients, is to accuse the other spouse of Domestic Violence. Therefore ensuring them full and clear custody of the children. Just being accused, let alone being convicted, will permanently mar any chance for the other spouse to ever see the children without supervision or to ever get custody, no matter how dangerous the household of the estranged spouse. Having experienced this personally, I feel it is my duty to let the web world know that this is the “new normal” happening in the courts.Since it’s inception into the public realm in the 90’s, the accusation of Domestic Violence is a quicker, more efficient way to shift focus off the other spouses’ shortcomings and to ensure that you will never have any rights to your children.False allegations of DV to Police - 2015

Attorneys now institute immediate Restraining Orders or CPO’s (depending on your state) in order to procure ultimate power in the courts. Officers of the law in your state are so strictly monitored that they cannot afford the penalties imposed on them personally and professionally. They just arrest without due process. (Due process being a historical lineage of abuse or prior record of child neglect, abuse or molestation.) All the other spouse has to do is merely call up an Officer of the Law (and I saw Law lightly) and make an accusation. No questions asked, the accused WILL BE carted off publicly in handcuffs and charged with preliminary abuse. The court battle is long and costly and even if you are never convicted, the arrest record remains and as you look for future employment, you will find you are denied based on the fact that you are a potential violent offender.

5cde8-the2bgame2bof2bchild2bcustody

A protective order is immediately drawn up at the time of arrest (even before conviction) by the court, that will keep you from your children unless supervised, therefore, providing your estranged spouse with the power to put off any pre-trial hearing until the initial paperwork is drawn up, giving them full temporary custody of the children. Once one parent is given this, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to reverse it.

False Allegations of DV Awareness JUNE - 2016