Senator Withdraws Bill Giving Custodial Parents Free Rein to Move Away

I'm always up for some good news....

AgapePress

Liberal California Senator Gloria Romero has withdrawn a bill that would have created a "presumptive right" for a divorced parent who has custody to move children away from the other parent.

According to men's issues columnist Glenn Sacks, founder of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, Romero received more than 4,000 phone calls, letters, and faxes opposing her measure. He says that is because "a lot of people within the mental health community, the psychological community, and the family law community recognize the value of fathers."

Glenn Sacks Updates

This is all verbatim from an email

SB 1482 Update

In the face of over 3,500 calls, letters and faxes opposing SB 1482, the hearing on the bill has been postponed from today to Tuesday, May 9. Thanks to all of your for your participation.

As I noted in my action alert NEW CAMPAIGN: Move-Away Bill Will Harm Children of Divorce (April 18, 2006):

"Under SB 1482...a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

"The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482."

New York Shared Parenting Bill Held

In a disappointing though not surprising vote, the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families voted today to hold over A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill. Four committee members voted in favor of the bill (see below), and the rest voted to hold, citing concerns about alleged technical issues or flaws in the bill.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years. Jim Hays, president of Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, who sponsored the bill, told me that with the four "yes" votes and all the media attention, this is the closest they've ever come to getting it out of committee. He has asked me to tell you that it was the 8,000 calls, letters and faxes you generated which helped bring it this close, and to thank you.

The Assemblymemebers voting in favor of the bill were Ruben Diaz Jr., Karim Camara, Michael Benjamin and Vincent Ignizio.

Riverside offers class for divorced parents - MA

Riverside offers class for divorced parents

The state Probate and Family Courts require parents who are divorcing to attend a parent education program to help them understand the effects of divorce on children. Riverside's Outpatient Center has been selected as an provider of this program and will offer its Partners for Positive Co-Parenting program approximately once each month.

Partners for Positive Co-Parenting is led by family counseling professionals and consists of two 2-1/2 hour sessions. Attendance at both sessions is mandatory in order to fulfill court requirements, The sessions are designed to provide parents with the skills necessary to best help their children respond to the divorce, to recognize the warning signs of poor adjustment, and to deal effectively with stress. Topics covered include the development of successful co-parenting strategies, child custody and visitation issues and information about other community resources.

The first sessions will be held on March 28 and April 4, from 6:30-9 p.m., with both sessions held at Riverside Outpatient Center, 338 Main St. Divorcing spouses will not be placed in the same class. Cost: $65. For information, call 781-246-2010.

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue - CA

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue

This is a rather long article so if it is applicable to you please link and read it in full.

Excerpts:

Who’s William S. Hochman?

According to the Marin County Bar Association and the title he uses, he’s a commissioner with the Marin County Superior Court, rendering decisions in the Department of Child Support Services and in essence, involved in administering a $90.2 million contract between the Department of Child Support Services and the Judicial Council of California.

How much Marin County receives in federal and state reimbursements appears to be directly tied to how Hochman rules and may constitute a significant conflict of interest in that the higher he sets child support awards, the more money the county receives which indicates that may not be concerned about the facts of the specific case but rather how much revenue he can generate for the county.

But according to the website for the Marin County Superior Court, he’s not a commissioner.

There are four commissioners listed for Marin County----and William S. Hochman isn’t one of them. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/MC/main/commissioners.

Is he a state officer, a county officer or is he legally in office at all?

Is he appointed or elected or is he an employee or an independent contractor?

No one in Marin County will say but yet the county bar calls him a commissioner and in a February, 2005 Bar newsletter, lists his address as the Marin County Superior Court in San Rafael.

The “program” which Hochman presumably oversees reportedly nets Marin County about $654,000 a year for his services although his salary is allegedly in the neighborhood of $150,000 with retirement contributions reportedly about $90,000.

When a California resident attempted to utilize a subpoena to obtain the public information concerning the administration of the state and federal monies and information concerning Hochman’s appointment and compensation, Hochman himself quashed it.

According to the statutes and Constitution of the State of California, it appears that Hochman is performing the duties of the office without legal authority, going so far as to imprison individuals without allegedly having the legal authority to do so. So far, officials in Marin County have been reluctant to comply with the state’s laws concerning public records about Hochman.

As a result of his alleged non-compliance of the law in regard to filing his oath and bond, any and all decisions that he has made in regard to setting child support could be legally challenged and perhaps vacated.

Neither Marin County nor state officials can or will produce either an oath of office or a bond for Hochman, both required. Without an oath and bond being subscribed to and filed in the county clerk’s office, Hochman can’t legally perform judicial duties and can’t legally be paid by county tax dollars.

Scott M. Beseda, human resources manager of the court, refused to respond to the request and did not produce a copy of the requisite oath required to be filed by Hochman, saying that in California, “the judicial branch of government, including the Superior Courts, its employees and contractors, are not subject to the Public Records Act”.

The Secretary of State also indicated that there was no oath on file in Sacramento either for William S. Hochman, indicating that while he’s doling out child support orders totaling thousands of dollars of individuals, rendering lives in total upheaval, it appears that he is doing so in total absence of jurisdiction and without legal authority. In fact, it appears that Hochman is doing so in violation of state law and the Constitution.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

This is regarding the recent California Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown vs. Yana. What is so sick here is that while the boy was already living with his father as he was so unhappy living with his mother out of state, the Court still found reasons to make it easier to for custodial parents to move. The experiences of this boy were completely ignored.

'Move-Away' Parents Get Green Light

Excerpts:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday shifted the balance in fights between divorced parents with a ruling that eases the way for a parent with custody — usually the mother — to move away over her former mate's objections.

Brown, who has two other children with her second husband, argued that Cameron would suffer if he was separated from his half-siblings. She also offered Yana more time in the summer with their son.

Yana argued that moving would put the boy in a community with poor schools and more crime. He also moved for joint custody. A lower court ruled that a judge should have held a full hearing on Yana's objections before the mother could relocate.

The high court disagreed, in Brown vs. Yana. The court ruled that a parent who lacks custody, usually the father, would have to show that the move would harm the child before he would be granted a hearing.

A hearing "in a move-away situation should be held only if necessary," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court.

Thursday's decision will not affect Cameron's current custody arrangement. After moving to Nevada with his mother, Cameron decided he would prefer to be with his father, and his mother eventually allowed the child to live with Yana in Santa Maria.

At a court hearing in November, "the boy testified unequivocally how unhappy he was with his stepfather and his mother," Helbert said. "He wasn't doing well in Las Vegas." (emphasis mine)

The court refused to rule that a child's unhappiness about moving could never be a sufficient reason for changing custody status. The court also said that regardless of custody status, any parent can try to stop a relocation if that parent can make a sufficient showing of potential harm to his or her children.

"Even a parent with sole legal and sole physical custody may be restrained from changing a child's residence if a court determines the change would be detrimental to the child's rights or welfare," Baxter wrote.

Self-help center receives award for its free help - California

Oroville Mercury Register - Local

This should be of particular interest to pro se litigants in California...

Excerpts:

Many citizens cannot afford a lawyer or they choose to represent themselves in a legal action, and they need assistance in preparing legal documents and navigating the court system. The Self-Help Assistance and Referral Program or SHARP provides self-represented litigants with assistance and instructional workshops in a variety of areas of law and helps them comply with the procedural processes of the court system.

The types of issues and cases that the SHARP center does provide assistance and referrals for include family law matters, divorce, legal separations, child custody, guardianships, unlawful detainers (evictions), domestic violence restraining orders, temporary restraining orders, among others.

There are SHARP centers in Oroville and Chico in Butte County, and there are centers in Orland and Willows in Glenn County. The Tehama County SHARP center is in Red Bluff. These centers are linked together with sophisticated teleconferencing equipment, which allows attorney and staff resources to be shared simultaneously at all SHARP locations.

The SHARP center in Oroville is located in the old downtown courthouse, 1931 Arlin Rhine Drive. For more information, call 530-532-7015.

AB 1307 Update: Shared Parenting Bill Defeated in Assembly Judiciary Committee

I am copying this verbatim from an email I received:


AB 1307 Update: Shared Parenting Bill Defeated in Assembly Judiciary Committee

May 3, 2005

Despite the massive support we generated for AB 1307, the new California Shared Parenting bill, children and the parents they love and need were defeated today in the California Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Two thousand of you called, faxed or wrote Sacramento in support of AB 1307. By contrast, the opposition, led by the California National Organization for Women, the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, the California Judges Association, the State of California Commission on the Status of Women, and the California State Bar Family Law Section, had no discernable popular support. Nevertheless, they successfully attacked the bill by claiming that a rebuttable presumption of shared custody puts women and children in danger of abusive men. They also claimed that fathers who fight for custody are usually abusers.

As my listeners and readers know, these claims are spurious. Mothers are far more likely to abuse children than fathers are, and women are as likely to commit domestic violence as men are, though women's injuries tend to be more serious. Moreover, AB 1307's presumption of shared custody applies only to fit parents, not abusers.

The California Shared Parenting Alliance's presentation at the hearing was impressive, particularly the testimony of family law attorney Denise Placencio. The highlight of the proceedings came near the end of the testimony when Assemblyman Mervyn M. Dymally, the bill's principal author, said "here's my final witness"--and held up a box with almost 2,000 of our letters in it!

Our defeat represents the triumph of special interests over children and families. The California Shared Parenting Alliance won the endorsements of dozens of mental health professionals and family law experts, as well as veterans and retirees groups. These were backed by popular support vastly beyond anything the special interest groups opposing us could muster.
CSPA has plans to continue this fight, and Dymally says he will be bringing the bill back next year.

A Personal Note to the Sackson Horde
This is our sixth His Side with Glenn Sacks Listener Campaign and our first defeat. I thank all of you for your support and faith in us, and I'm sorry we were unable to deliver another victory. I knew from the beginning that this one would be tough, but I also believed that we had to fight the good fight regardless of the odds.

Special credit goes to CSPA lobbyist Michael Robinson, who spearheaded both AB 1307 and SB 1082 in Sacramento, and was one of the heroes behind our successful campaign to preserve the LaMusga move-away decision last summer. To donate to support CSPA and Michael's lobbying efforts, click here. Thanks also to the American Coalition for Fathers and Children for its support.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

California Shared Parenting Bill

"AB 1307, a new Shared Parenting bill recently introduced in the California legislature, seeks to help preserve children of divorce's bonds with both parents by creating a clear presumption that parents equally share in the responsibility of joint custody of their children unless there is clear evidence that it would not be in the children's best interests. "

For more information you can visit the California Shared Parenting Alliance web site:

The California Shared Parenting Alliance (CSPA) is a group of mental health professionals, family law practitioners and concerned parents who believe that children’s need for frequent and meaningful contact with both parents after a divorce is paramount.

CSPA was organized for the purpose of passing AB 1307, a bill which will clarify California law and create a clear presumption that parents equally share in the responsibility of joint custody of their children unless there is clear evidence that it would not be in the children’s best interest.

John Burton Withdraws Bill!

Directly from the ACCAMA:


Newsletter

Victory! Burton Pulls SB 730 in Face of Enormous Opposition
August 16, 2004

We have just received word that California Senate President John Burton has decided to withdraw SB 730--the bill to abrogate the LaMusga decision and create unrestricted move-aways.

Thanks to the thousands of you who responded to our campaign and supported us. Today the bonds between tens of thousands of California children and their noncustodial parents have been preserved.

Usually our side loses the battle in the media, which helps precipitate a defeat in the legislature. This time was clearly different. The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways garnered a ton of press attention, most of it quite favorable. To learn more about ACCAMA's impact, visit ACCAMA in the Media.

However, please remember that our opponents will be back next year, probably in January. There will be a different sponsor and a different bill number but they will be back. The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways will fight any bill which disregards the loving bonds between children and both of their parents.

Below is the compilation of recent news on the fight against SB 730 which I had intended to send out today.

Best Wishes,Glenn SacksAlliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways

There have been many positive developments for our side in the past week:
Numerous professional organizations have come out against SB 730. These include: the California Judge's Association; the State Bar of California, Family Law Section; the Los Angeles County Bar, Family Law Section; the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists; the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - California Chapter; and the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers - Southern California Chapter.

Psychologists Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D. and Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. released a statement this week urging the legislature not to pass SB 730. See Mental Health Professionals Condemn SB 730. Warshak and Braver co-authored a brief filed on behalf of the LaMusga children which was signed by over 50 mental health professionals. To read that brief, click here.
ACCAMA has now been endorsed by over 50 mental health and family law professionals. To see the list of ACCAMA endorsers, click here.

Governor Schwarzenegger has issued a statement condemning "gut and amend" bills like SB 730 and expressing his aversion to signing them. A recent Los Angeles Times article, Last-Minute Legislation Challenged (8/13/04), described such bills as legislation which "shows up seemingly out of nowhere and gets rushed through the Assembly and Senate without much public scrutiny." The article mentions SB 730 specifically, and one of Schwarzenegger's spokespeople said: "A gut-and-amend is not going to be looked upon favorably unless there is a compelling public interest."

ACCAMA offers a special thanks to Assemblyman Tom Harman, Vice Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and his legislative director David Weaver for their assistance on SB 730.

ACCAMA update on Burton's Bill

I found a few spare minutes and I got the following in an email so I am simply going to paste it verbatim:


Newsletter

Revised Draft of SB 730--Watered Down, but Still a Step in the Wrong DirectionAugust 4, 2004
A draft of the revised version of SB 730--the anti-LaMusga move-away bill now in the California legislature--has just been released. In part because of the efforts of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways in organizing large scale opposition to this bill, the bill has been watered down significantly from its original.

To read the new draft of SB 730, click here. To read the original, in which custodial parents were to be granted the right to move without even obtaining a court order, click here.

Nevertheless, even the revised version of SB 730 is still a significant step in the wrong direction. LaMusga is a very moderate opinion. LaMusga still puts the burden of proof on the nonmoving parent, and would still allow most custodial parents to move with their children. The revised SB 730 abrogates LaMusga, and makes it even more difficult for nonmoving parents to block a move.

As previously mentioned, SB 730 will reportedly be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on August 10. For up to date information on the LaMusga bill and information on how to take action, click here.

Chronology of events regarding SB 730 and LaMusga

August 4, 2004Revised draft of SB 730 released. To read it, click here.

July 27, 2004Letters to Sacramento by ACAAMA supporters total over 1,000.

July 26, 2004Opponents and proponents of SB 730 meet with Anthony Williams, principal consultant to California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton. Several endorsers and supporters of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways speak, including Garrett C. Dailey, who represented Gary LaMusga in the California Supreme Court, and family law attorney Peter M. Walzer. Dailey presents Williams with 600 letters from ACCAMA supporters expressing their opposition to SB 730.

July 25, 2004California Supreme Court denies petition to rehear LaMusga.

July 24, 2004Over three dozen family law attorneys and mental health professionals endorse ACCAMA. For a list of endorsers, click here.

July 20, 2004 Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger, an outspoken opponent of the 1996 Burgess decision, endorses ACCAMA's campaign on the air. See Dr. Laura Joins Campaign Against Unrestricted Move-Aways (MND Newswire, 7/23/04).

July 13, 2004Over 300 ACCAMA supporters write to California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton. Burton's principal consultant Anthony Williams invites ACCAMA representatives to discuss the anti-LaMusga bill.

July 11, 2004Los Angeles radio talk show host Glenn Sacks announces the formation of the Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, and calls his listeners to action.
June, July, 2004Prominent California family law attorneys write letters to Burton opposing anti-LaMusga bill. To read the letters, click here.

June, 2004Draft of SB 730 is leaked. Draft states "the custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or her to do so." Draft is available here.

April 29, 2004California Supreme Court decides In Re: Marriage of LaMusga in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga. See: LaMusga opinion at [PDF], "Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?" (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and Court: Closer scrutiny in custody case moves (Sacramento Bee, 4/30/04).

February, 2004Burton introduces SB 1367, which instructs courts that a custodial parent's request to change residence cannot be "frustrated by undue delay." See California Senate Leader to Family Courts: Don't Consider Children's Best Interests (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 4/6/04) Burton later pulls SB 1367 in favor of SB 730.

October, 2003In his last days in office Governor Davis signs SB 156, which reaffirms the Burgess decision. See New California Move-Away Law Hurts Children of Divorce (Long Beach Press Telegram, 10/18/03).

June, 2003Arizona State University professors Sanford Braver, Ira Ellman and William Fabricius release a study which finds that move-aways are correlated with damaging long-term consequences for children. See Relocation of children after divorce and children's best interests: New evidence and legal considerations and New Study, Case May Help California Children of Divorce (Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers, 6/5/03)

August 28, 2002California Supreme Court agrees to hear LaMusga. Read all briefs from all sides here.

More John Burton News

I received a link to this article in my email:

Talk Radio Campaign Blocks CA. Senate Leader's 'Stealth' Family Law Bill

Apparently Mr Burtons plan has become common knowledge. From the article:

"Hundreds of angry parents deluged the offices of California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) with calls, faxes and e-mails yesterday, protesting a "stealth" family law bill which Burton reportedly planned to sneak through the legislature in his last months in office.

The protestors, called to action by KMPC Los Angeles radio talk show host Glenn Sacks, seek to block a proposed bill which would abrogate the California Supreme Court's recent decision in the LaMusga move-away case. Anthony Williams, one of Burton's principal consultants, has now agreed to meet with leaders of the newly formed Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways to discuss the bill."

To see what you can do link to the ACCAMA website.

California CPS Investigation

Grand jury report blasts Child Welfare Services

California Senate Bill 1367 Update

I decided today was a good day for updates so I am trying to research all the past bills and initiatives that I have catalogued.

I am trying to figure out if anything has happened to this bill. I saw on one site someone said (with no support) that the bill had been withdrawn by Burton the day before the California Supreme Court ruled on LaMusga. Elsewhere I saw a reference to the bill being amended. There was no back-up support for this contention either so I am not sure if it was the resubmitted.

Here is a link to the California Senate Page for Bill 1367. This site lists the bills last amended date as 4/27/04. It further says on 4/28/04 it was withdrawn from committee and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

So I guess not much to report... If anyone knows anything about what is going on with this bill, please share...

California Senate Bill 1367

While the LaMusga move away case continues to be debated in the California Supreme Court, California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton is attempting to push a bill through the legislature that will make it easier for custodial parents to move. The bill states that a parents petition to move "cannot be frustrated by undue delay," effectively eliminating the courts ability to do an thorough and in-depth evaluation as to the needs of the child. Read the entire Glenn Sacks article here: MichNews.com

Contact John Burton from his website.

Senator Burton is a democrat, as is the majority of the California Senate. The most recent bill that Senator Burton passed through the legislature was in Oct 2003 and reads as follows:
BILL NUMBER: SB 156 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 674
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 6, 2003
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 5, 2003
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 9, 2003
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 4, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 13, 2003

INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

An act to amend Section 7501 of the Family Code, relating to child
custody.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 156, Burton. Custody: residence of the child.
Existing law provides that a parent entitled to the custody of a
child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to
the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the
rights or welfare of the child. Existing law, as established in In
re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, provides that when a
judicial custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to
relocate bears no burden of establishing that it is necessary to do
so.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to affirm the
decision in the case described above and to declare that ruling to be
the public policy and law of this state.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 7501 of the Family Code is amended to read:
7501. (a) A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right
to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the
court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or
welfare of the child.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to affirm the decision in
In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, and to declare that
ruling to be the public policy and law of this state.

Obviously it is his intent to slowly erode any claim that a non-custodial parent has to their child.

You can contact all members of the California Senate on the Senate website. The following are Republican Senators: Brulte, Poochigian, Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Denham, Hollingsworth, Johnson, Knight, Margett, McClintock, McPherson, Morrow and Oller.

This is not to say that we have a preference for Republicans, only that considering a Democrat is pushing through this horrific legislation, we should expect the most support from a Republican counterpart.

Marin County, California

If your divorce or custody case was handled by Judge Michael Dufficy in Marin Co, California, you might find this article interesting. Marin Independent Journal

FathersRightsInc.com

This site is largely the same, a few free resources, but mostly aimed at getting you to pay for their services. What is interesting is that they offer two plans through which they help you represent yourself pro se. Their specialty appears to lie in California. I have no experience with their services so I am in no way endorsing them, however, it you are extremely strapped for cash and especially if you live in California, it might at least be worth taking a look at. I would love for anyone with experience with this service to please report on their thoughts. I hate to unequivocally blast all pay sites, but most appear to be pretty opportunistic to me. If anyone has had a positive experience with any pay site, I would love to hear about it and would gladly post your thoughts. FathersRightsInc.com

California Relocation

California Supreme Court reconsidering the question of relocation. A decision is expected in the next 90 days, but you can read some of the details here: Mercury News

Move...

This site has a variety of articles and information regarding move away cases in California. (I previously bashed this site, now I feel guilty) Mensnewsdaily.com

Palm Springs, CA. Public law library. If you are doing your own research and are anywhere close to this area, this is an invaluable resource for you. DesertSun.com

San Bernardino Legal Aid

If you live in San Bernardino country here is the number to legal aid: (909) 889-7328.