Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."

Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.

This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.

Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.

And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.

But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.

So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support.

What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments.

"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.

and

"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."

and

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

plus

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

Michigan NOW Declares 'Action Alert' Against Shared Parenting Bill

This is verbatim from an email:

Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.

You can access a list of Michigan legislators, their phone numbers and their email addresses by clicking here.

The Case for HB 5267

Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here.

I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote:

"HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children...

"NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting.

"For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor.

"When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.

"Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents.

"Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.

"Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted.

"Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

"While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody.

"Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives."

You can access more information about HB5267 on Family Rights Coalition of Michigan site.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Defeated

Yuck.

This is from the Minot Daily News:

Measure 3, the shared parenting initiative, made a good showing early, but was ultimately defeated. Getting the issue on the ballot has raised awareness of concerns regarding child custody and child support. We expect the Legislature to take up some of those same issues in the near future.


Carey Roberts mentions this legislation is his most recent article: Bush Needs to Rein in Feminist Operatives

Excerpts:

And then there were the bureaucrats at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) who didn’t like the idea of divorced fathers seeing their kids. So in direct violation of federal ethics rules, they took it upon themselves to tell the North Dakota legislators to defeat a shared parenting initiative.

Their reasoning? It’s better to let fatherless kids become drop-outs and juvenile delinquents – that way the state can rake in millions of federal welfare money.

Shame on ACF head Margo Bean for tolerating these bureaucratic shenanigans.

To his credit, President Bush did manage to shoehorn $150 million into last year’s welfare reform law to promote marriage and fatherhood. But that money will do little to stem the destructive effects of Clinton time-bomb programs like the Violence Against Women Act.

IowaFathers.com works to Oust Judge Pelton

IowaFathers.com is encouraging residents of District 7 in Iowa (Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , Muscatine , and Scott Counties) to vote no to Judge Pelton on November 7th.

An article about their efforts can be seen here: Group works to oust judge

This is all verbatim from email:

The Quad Cities Times article did not report that Judge Pelton is asking voters of District 7 to give him a six (6) year, guaranteed salary of $875,000 without stating where he stands on the issue of joint physical care. The article failed to mention that Judge Pelton refused to respond to a survey requesting information from him about joint physical care and child custody arrangements. The article failed to state that Judge Pelton received the lowest ratings in his district and ranked second lowest in the state by the Iowa Bar Association in their 2006 Plebiscite. Many other issues were not touched in the article.

When Judge Pelton restricts access of children to good loving qualified parents, without meeting any compelling state interest, he is acting as an activist judge, trampling on constitutional rights, and no longer are citizens of Iowa going to tolerate such judicial activism.

On November 7, 2006, please encourage all friends and family members residing in Cedar, Clinton , Jackson , Muscatine , and Scott Counties to Vote NO for Judge Charles Pelton.

Dr. Warren Farrell to Address National Family Law Reform Conference

From an ACFC email:

We are pleased to relay the news that Dr. Warren Farrell will be joining us for the National Family Law Reform Conference, September 15 -16, 2006 at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia.

A partial list of confirmed speakers includes:Dr. Warren Farrell, Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President - Eagle Forum, Glenn Sacks, Columnist, Michael McManus, Dr. Stephen Baskerville.....and many others......

Click here to register for this event.

You will come away with invaluable tools, contacts, and concrete steps to implement change and put family law reform at the center of your community and state agenda.

ACFC has negotiated a discounted room rate of $119.00 per night with the Marriott for the conference. This rate is per room, not per person, up to 4 people may share a room. Please contact the hotel directly at 703 920-3230 or toll free at 800 228-9290 to reserve your room. Indicate you are attending the National Family Law Reform Conference to receive the conference rate. A limited number of rooms are available, unbooked rooms will release back to the hotel soon (August 21, 2006), so reserve today.

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative Will Help Children of Divorce

Excerpts:

The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is based on the belief that all parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, and that no fit parent can lawfully be denied custody of his or her children. Under the Initiative, when family law courts adjudicate a divorce, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a mother or father is unfit, all parents will have joint legal and physical custody of their children.

The CCCRC claims that the Initiative places the interests of parents over the interests of children. Yet when psychologist Joan Kelly examined children of divorce, she found that they “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. An Arizona State University study queried adult children of divorce, and found that more than two-thirds believed “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.”

Treat men, women equally in courts

Treat men, women equally in courts

The article is about sex offenders but the sentiment is certainly true.

Excerpts:

Males and females who commit equally serious offenses should receive equally harsh punishment and an equal chance for rehabilitation. The criminal justice system, in New Hampshire and nationally, should be able to say that’s the case and to prove it.

Divorce law change gaining attention - LA

Divorce law change gaining attention

Excerpts:

Hailed as the first uniformly applicable legislation since “no-fault” was introduced in 1969 that makes divorce harder to get, Act 743 doubles the living-separate-and-apart waiting period from six months to one year when minor children would be affected by a no-fault divorce. If it is demonstrated that one spouse is guilty of child or spousal abuse, the current waiting period remains unaffected.

Alexander justified his legislation on the basis that divorce hurts children: “We know that in one-parent families, a child is twice as likely to drop out of school, three times as likely to become pregnant as a teenager, six times more likely to be in poverty and 12 times more likely to be incarcerated.” And he cited a study that said the change could cut the divorce rate by 23 percent.

Sen. Bob Kostelka, a retired judge who led the fight for the law in Louisiana’s Senate, reasoned that divorces “were often granted before the couple had worked out issues of child custody and support. That removed the option of reconciliation, because they would be divorced before they had settled important issues” that might have prompted meaningful counseling.

Louisiana Family Forum Action supported this reform legislation that aligns with recent polling data showing that 60 percent of Louisianians believe “divorce should be more difficult to get for couples with minor children than other couples.” A Time-CNN national poll has agreed with these findings.

Moreover, a study by Dr. Linda Waite revealed that “86 percent of unhappily married people who stick it out, find that, five years later, their marriages are happier.” Three-fifths who said their marriages were unhappy in the late 1980s and who stayed married, said their marriages were either “very happy” or “happy” when reinterviewed in the early 1990s.
Act 743 becomes the first enactment in pursuance of a 2001 study by the Louisiana Law Institute urging the Legislature to consider a number of divorce reforms, including longer cooling-off periods.

New Link - The Online Lawyer

Stop by and visit The Online Lawyer. The site includes all kind of general legal information including info on divorce and custody.

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce - Illinois

Parents need to focus on what’s best for children in divorce

Excerpts:

Divorce can affect each child differently, and parents need to learn how best to help their children through the situation.

For the last three years, Marriage and Family Counseling Service in Rock Island has offered classes on co-parenting after divorce or separation.

New rules enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court require parents in divorce proceedings to go through a class like the TransParenting class offered by Marriage and Family Counseling Service. Parents who have never married but who are going through a child custody case also will be required to take the class, said Rock Island County Circuit Judge Lori Lefstein.

The state supreme court announced the class requirement in February as part of a series of new rules to help ensure that child custody proceedings be handled expeditiously, competently and with great emphasis on the "best interest of the child."

The rules grew out of the continuing work of the special Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues that was established in January 2002 to study child custody, parental termination and adoption issues.

Judge Lefstein said she often recommended the class to parents even before the requirement went into effect July 1. Even if the parents are going their separate ways, they can learn to work together for the sake of their children, she said.

"Co-parenting is a very different relationship than a spousal relationship," he said. "Even though the marriage is ending, the parenting continues."

It's important for parents to focus on the child, he said, even though they may have their own emotional issues to deal with.

Families who navigate divorce successfully are those who talk about it and continue to talk about it and allow children to have their say, he added. If a family doesn't address the issues raised during a divorce right away, it can cause problems down the road.

Tips for divorcing parents

1. Don't badmouth the other parent. "Kids have loyalty to both parents regardless of how great or lousy the person is," said Derek Ball, a licensed marriage and family therapist.

2. Don't make your kid the messenger. Your child will be very interested in what's going on and will want to get the inside scoop, but as a parent, do your own communicating with the other parent as much as possible.

3. Be a good listener. Mr. Ball said parents are quick to use opportunities to lecture or teach their child, but in this situation, your child just wants to be heard. Give them feedback to make sure you understand what they are saying.

4. Don't make your kid into your confidante. Your child needs to be allowed to be a child. Go to your friends, parent, pastor or therapist for emotional support, not your child, Mr. Balls aid.

Upcoming Dates
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 13
5:30-9:30 p.m. July 25
9 a.m.-1 p.m. Sept. 9
5:30-9:30 p.m. Oct. 24
5:30-9:30 p.m. Dec. 5

Cost: $50 per person

Location: Marriage and Family Counseling Service, 1800 3rd Ave., Suite 512 Rock Island
For more information, call (309) 786-4491.

Protect Children from Alienation

Protect Children from Alienation

Latest Glenn Sacks....

Excerpts:

Family law mediators J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. and Michael R. Walsh explain that in PAS situations children "live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal” and fear abandonment. Bone and Walsh note that when children “express positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious...The child is continually being put through various loyalty tests…the alienating parent thus forces the child to choose [between] parents...in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.”

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."

Going Pro Se - Uncontested Divorce in CA

On Uncontested Case for Divorce - Part 1

By: Atty. TONISITO M.C. UMALI

THIS primer can help you get a divorce (also called "dissolution of marriage"). This article assumes that the divorce will be uncontested and that both parties live in the State of California.

Excerpts:

What are the forms I need to start my case?

You need to complete and file 2 forms to start your case (3 forms if you have children). In some cases (or in some counties, there are more forms). The two California Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts forms (“forms” for brevity) you need are the following: 1) Petition-Marriage (Family Law); and Summons (Family Law).If you have children under the age of 18 with your spouse, complete also Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

If you need more space on your petition to enumerate your property and debts, you may use the Property Declaration (Family Law) form.

After completing these forms, make at least 3 copies of each form. One copy will be served on your spouse while the 2 copies are for your records.

Arizona Divorce, Custody & Support Info

Arizona Constitution

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 8 - Children Title 25 - Marital and Domestic Relations

Arizona Child Support Guidelines and Calculator

Arizona Self Service Legal Forms

AZLawHelp.org

Arizona Legal Services Resources

FAMILY COURT WEB SITE

ARIZONA FATHERS' RIGHTS

More Glen Sacks and A330

This is all verbatim from an email:

Assembly Committee Stalls Vote on Shared Parenting Bill

Despite media coverage and over 5,000 calls and letters, powerful members of the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families are trying to stall voting on A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill.

We recently suspended the thousands of faxes being sent to the Committee members through our campaign page because the committee members told us they were unable to get any work done. James Hays of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, which is sponsoring the New York Shared Parenting Bill, has now asked us to go back to emails to deliver the message. To email now, click here.

The vote on the bill was set for March 28 but has been postponed twice. New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood, and we want a vote on this bill. Again, to support the bill, click here.

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

Shared Parenting Bill Would Help New York's Children of Divorce

More Glenn Sacks...

Excerpts:

According to a meta-analysis conducted by psychologist Robert Bauserman and published in the American Psychological Association‘s Journal of Family Psychology, children in joint custody settings had fewer behavior and emotional problems, higher self-esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than children in sole custody arrangements.

A Harvard University study of 517 families conducted across a four-and-a-half year period measured depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades in children ranging in age from 10 to 18. The researchers found that the children in joint custody settings fared better in these areas than those in sole custody.

A study by psychologist Joan Kelly published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor.

When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents’ divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that “living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children."

Research demonstrates that joint custody also leads to high rates of child support compliance. This is no surprise--parents who are permitted little role in their children’s lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for their children. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

According to a study in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, over time joint custody serves to help reduce conflict between divorced spouses. When Texas Woman's University conducted a study of the effects of post-divorce discord on children aged 8 to 12, they found that joint custody does not expose children to greater parental conflict. Bauserman’s research found that divorced couples with joint custody report less conflict than those in sole-custody settings.

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

Banned in Massachusetts: Family Court Judge Bars Tell-All Book, According to Fathers & Families

Angry Dad is also covering this.

The book is still available for download on Lulu.com. $20.00 for print version, $9.16 to download.

BOSTON, March 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Fathers & Families reacted today to the ruling by Judge Mary Manzi of the Essex County Probate and Family Court that banned member Kevin Thompson from distributing his tell-all book, "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."

"With the stroke of a pen, Judge Manzi has swept away the Bill of Rights,"said Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of Fathers & Families. The book is critical of Judge Manzi and others in the family court system, and reveals details of Mr. Thompson's custody battle for his four-year-old son.

Labeling Judge Manzi's ruling "a trifecta of tyranny," Dr. Holstein noted that Judge Manzi abused her position in several ways, including:

* Conflict of interest: Dr. Holstein questioned why Judge Manzi did not recuse herself, since an entire chapter in the book criticizes her judicial actions in the case.
* Double standard: Judge Manzi applied a different standard to Mr. Thompson because he is involved in a custody battle. Under the bill of rights, any American has the right to publish an autobiography, even if some people don't like what the book says.
* Bias: Judge Manzi indicated that she may punish Mr. Thompson by requiring him to pay the fees of the lawyers who demanded that she ban his book.

Mr. Thompson, a physics teacher and law-abiding father, lost custody of his son Patrick even though he is a devoted parent. The reasons are secret, as the court has impounded the records. The family courts frequently issue gag orders, impound records, and abridge a variety of other constitutional rights, including the right to the care and custody of one's children. Mr. Thompson is available through Fathers & Families.

About Fathers & Families Based in Boston, Fathers & Families is a non-profit advocacy organization protecting children's right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. Fathers & Families seeks to change well-meaning but misguided laws, judicial traditions, and government policies that drive many loving fathers out of their children's lives after divorce. Fathers &Families counts some 2,200 Massachusetts supporters, of whom approximately 40 percent are women. More information is available at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ or by calling (617) 542-9300.

Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alabama Code and Constitution can be viewed here.

Title 30 (Marital and Domestic Relations) can be viewed here.

Alabama Child Support Guidelines

Alabama Child Support Calculator

Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children(ALCFC)

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

Alabama Legal Services Programs

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

Welfare Reform Meets the Law of Unintended Consequences

Welfare Reform Meets the Law of Unintended Consequences

This is the latest article by Phyllis Schlafly

Excerpts:

The Great Society welfare system was recognized by the 1990s as a social disaster that created fatherless children, illegitimacy and women's dependency on government. Channeling taxpayer handouts to mothers provided a powerful financial incentive for fathers to depart; they were not needed anymore.

Unfortunately, policy changes in the 1988 and 1996 welfare laws created similar financial incentives for state governments to exclude middle-class fathers from the home. The law incentivized the states to manufacture "noncustodial" (i.e., absent) fathers and to order money transfers (usually through wage garnishment) to mothers, thereby putting a large segment of the middle class under the welfare bureaucrats.

Formerly, to receive welfare benefits, recipients had to demonstrate eligibility by "need" (i.e., a test measured by income level), but the new policy omitted income eligibility requirements. Without a means test, a high-income mother with custody can use the power of the state to collect from a low-income father.

The federal government annually provides $4.2 billion in block grants to states to serve as collection agencies. States are reimbursed for 66 percent of their costs of child support enforcement activities, 80 percent of their costs for technology, and 66 percent of their costs of DNA testing for paternity.

The more cases the states can create and the more operational expenses they incur, the more federal funding states receive to expand their welfare bureaucracy. No performance standards are required to get this money and, in addition, the feds provide a bonus fund ($458 million in Fiscal 2006) for which the states compete.

This result was accurately predicted by Leslie L. Frye, chief of Child Support for the California Department of Social Services. In testifying to the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on March 20, 1997, Frye said the new regulations "encouraged states to recruit middle-class families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support incentives."

Many consciences should be burdened with the realization that taxpayer money provides financial incentives to deprive millions of children of their own fathers.

Family law workshop - Albuquerque, NM

Family law workshop: "Divorce, Custody, and Child Support":
6 p.m. TVI South Valley Campus multi-purpose room, 5816 Isleta Blvd. S.W.
Presentation by lawyer Thomas Mucci, followed by a question-and-answer period.
Free. 797-6048.

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 Calculators

SupportGuidelines.com maintains a fairly complete list of state specific child support calculators.

Other sites with calculators include alllaw.com and divorcelawinfo.com.

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

Societal Shift in Role of Fathers

This is the latest article from Wendy McElroy.

Excerpts:

On March 28, the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A330 on shared parenting. The bill seeks to establish "the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child."

In short, a parent seeking sole custody (most commonly the mother) would assume the legal burden of proving why a shared arrangement would harm the child.

Father's rights advocates view New York as "a battleground state" not only because of the influence its policies exert but also because New York is one of the few states to resist a national trend toward statutes favoring joint custody.

Because A330 is vehemently opposed by mainstream feminist organizations like the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the bill's hearing may become raucous. But, given that almost three dozen State Assembly members have endorsed the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, A330 stands a good chance of passing.

To Be A Man or To Be A Sperm Donor?

I should have known Cathy Young would be talking about Roe v. Wade for men. As always, she remains a reasonable voice in some of the most difficult of issues. And the comments on her posts are always a good read.

Lawdragon Web site will lift veil on judges

Lawdragon Web site will lift veil on judges

Excerpts:

The "secret society" of U.S. judges is about to be invaded by a Web site that lets people who have appeared before them rate judges in the first such public forum.

Lawdragon set out last summer to become the first Web site to allow legal professionals and clients to evaluate the nation's 1.1 million lawyers and judges.

Next week, http://lawdragon.com begins posting thousands of evaluations of judges and lawyers submitted by colleagues, clients and legal watchdogs -- a sort of Amazon.com of legal professionals.

Lawdragon.com now receives about 100 evaluations per day and last week scored 400,000 hits for its legal news content and lawyer directory.

The site also plans to offer a comparison of attorneys fees.

"This is a legal community online where you can have your voice heard," Dewey said. "At Lawdragon, they will be able to find the best lawyer, the cheapest one or somebody that can see them right away."

Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

'Shared parenting' seen as custody solution
Bills in New York would require courts to treat mom, dad equally

Excerpts:

A.330 in the New York State Assembly would guarantee "statutory presumption of joint custody" in divorce cases "so that both parents can continue to share in the responsibilities and duties of the children's upbringing."

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, states that continuing contact with both parents through "shared parenting" is in the best interests of minor children – as well as their parents.

Under the legislation, courts would be required to award joint custody unless something were brought to light to prove such an arrangement would be detrimental to the children. That fact would have to be proved by the party seeking sole custody.

"Shared parenting," the bill states, means "both parents would remain legally responsible and in control of their children so that both parents share in the care and upbringing of their children."

States the legislation: "Currently, there is no preference for shared parenting in New York. The court may award joint custody, but in practice rarely does so."

Weisenberg's bill has been endorsed by the New York City Council and fathers' rights organization Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. A companion bill in the Senate is S.291.

Another similar bill pending in the Assembly is A.6670 by Assemblyman Brian Kolb. One of its provisions is to change state statutory language so the term "visitation" for non-prime custodial parents is substituted with "parenting time."

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws - North Dakota

Proposed initiative would revamp child custody laws

Excerpts:

BISMARCK - A proposed ballot measure would revamp North Dakota's laws on child custody in favor of having parents share joint physical custody of their children.

The measure, which was submitted to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on Friday for review, would also limit child support payments to "the actual cost of providing for the basic needs" of a child.

The measure would establish joint physical custody of children in most divorces, which is defined as having the children spend equal time with both parents. A joint physical custody arrangement would prevail unless one of the parents was judged unfit, the measure says.

Jaeger reviews ballot initiatives to ensure they are in proper legal form, and writes a short description of what the measure does. He must provide the measure's ballot title by March 1.

To place the measure on the November ballot, supporters must gather signatures from at least 12,844 eligible North Dakota voters by Aug. 8.

New Site Addition - Real Family Law

Lisa Scott's Real Family Law site has been added has been added to the links section. From the site:

Lisa Scott is a family law attorney based in Bellevue, Washington. Tired of having her stuff rejected by elitist bar publications and politically-correct newspapers, she decided to start her own website. Co-founder of TABS: Taking Action Against Bias in the System, she has been fighting for equal justice and gender equality in the family courts for years. Lisa hopes you enjoy the humor, satire, absurdity, and occasional seriousness contained on this site. And be sure to give us your contributions on the Blog.

Legal line offers free advice Tuesday - Indiana

Legal line offers free advice Tuesday

INDIANAPOLIS -- Free legal assistance is available by calling Legal Line, sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar Association (IBA), 6-8 p.m. Tuesday.

Call (317) 269-2000 to speak with a qualified attorney who will answer questions and give advice on legal matters on a variety of topics including divorce, child custody, child support, landlord/tenant issues, bankruptcy, personal injury, employment law and more.

Callers with more complex legal issues should call IBA's Lawyer Referral Service, (317) 269-2222, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.

'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.

Letterman Case Shows Problems with Restraining Orders

This is the latest article by Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Leving

Letterman Case Shows Problems with Restraining Orders

Excerpts:

A Santa Fe, New Mexico judge recently granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman for a woman who alleges that Letterman—who works in New York City and whom she has never met--has mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts. According to Colleen Nestler, Letterman has caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade, and has used code words and gestures during his broadcasts to show her that he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.

Beginning in the 1970s, restraining orders became a tool to help protect battered women. This is as it should be. However, in the rush to protect the abused, the rights of the accused are being violated on an arguably unprecedented scale. Many if not most domestic violence restraining orders are simply tactical maneuvers designed to gain advantage in high stakes family law proceedings. The Illinois Bar Journal calls the orders "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person....it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. This helps women position themselves as their children’s sole caretakers, which aids them in winning sole (or de facto sole) custody of their children in their divorce settlements. In California and other states, the order itself can be considered a finding of domestic abuse, making the restrained person ineligible for joint custody.

Despite these grave effects, many courts grant restraining orders to practically any woman who applies. District Judge Daniel Sanchez, who issued the restraining order against Letterman, explained "If [applicants] make a proper pleading, then I grant it."

Restraining orders generally only limit the restrained person’s contact with the protected person but not vice versa. As a result, husbands who have reconciled with their wives are being arrested during routine traffic stops for being in the same car with them. In one case, a father was arrested and jailed for three days for breaching a domestic violence order by taking his son to the hospital. The mother had called the father, said their son had been injured in a bike accident, and asked him to take the boy to the hospital. The conviction stays on his record and hurts his job prospects but he can’t get it undone.

Some men have been arrested and jailed after being tricked into violating their restraining orders. In one Seattle case, a man was jailed for three months after returning phone calls from his ex-wife, who showed the police the phone screen with the man’s number on it. The man explained that when he received the messages he worried that something might have happened to his kids. He asks “what kind of parent would I be if I didn’t return those calls?”

Supervised visitation monitors face little oversight - CA

Supervised visitation monitors face little oversight

I was particularly comforted by this, "The list of monitors from the Superior Court includes a disclaimer that the court "does not select, evaluate, endorse or supervise" those on the list and that they "have not been screened" regarding law enforcement, children's services bureau or personal history." Isn't it wonderful that such people might be involved in YOUR custody case?

Excerpts:

The monitors, however, face virtually no oversight, and parents or attorneys with complaints about them have few options.

Some court officials and others say they lack the authority and ability to take any action when parents or attorneys complain about the monitors, and that more oversight and regulation is needed.

Karen Oehme, program director of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation at Florida State University, said communities "continue to grapple" with what standards and skills supervised visitation monitors should have, and state lawmakers ultimately will have to make any changes."I think certification and monitoring of supervised visitation programs is definitely the future of supervised visitation," Oehme said. "The thing is, it takes money. It will be a state-by-state issue and will be done legislatively."

A local, outspoken critic of the family courts, however, said increased oversight and regulation will not help and that supervised visitation should be scrapped altogether except in cases of documented abuse."

I think we ought to explode the myth of oversight," said Bonnie Russell, 55, of Del Mar, who started the Web site http://www.familylawcourts.com/ during her own custody battle and believes more government involvement is not the answer. "There's not enough budget for real oversight, but more importantly, there's not enough interest."

Superior Court judges generally order supervised visitation for noncustodial parents in divorces that involve allegations of substance abuse by parents, child abuse, domestic violence, parents "venting" to kids about their estranged spouses, or parents sending messages to each other through a child, said Superior Court Judge William Howatt, the supervising judge for the family court in San Diego County.

Supervised visitation monitors can be "nonprofessional" ---- family members or friends on which both sides agree who are not paid ---- or "professional," paid monitors. Paid monitors generally charge between $16.50 an hour to $70 an hour, some monitors said. The rate sometimes is based on parents' income.

California adopted criteria in 1998 that all supervised visitation monitors must satisfy, but no regulatory agency exists for the monitors, a state court official said.

Patricia Chavez-Fallon, the director of the Superior Court's Family Court Services in San Diego County, said people who want to be paid monitors submit documentation to the court showing they have attended a training class and meet the other state standards, which essentially require that monitors be 21 or older and free of any legal trouble in the previous 10 years. Chavez-Fallon then adds them to an alphabetical list of supervised visitation monitors that the court provides.

The state standards, however, do not specify how much training someone should receive, and state and local officials do not certify or authorize specific agencies to do the training, officials said.

The list of monitors from the Superior Court includes a disclaimer that the court "does not select, evaluate, endorse or supervise" those on the list and that they "have not been screened" regarding law enforcement, children's services bureau or personal history.

Howatt said that providing the list may give the appearance that the court sanctions or approves the monitors, but it does not. The court's role is just to determine whether the monitors meet the qualifications in the state standards, Howatt said.

Nevertheless, what monitors write about their observations during supervised visits affects decisions judges make, but how much of an effect they have depends on the questions at issue in each case, Howatt said.

Officials at Griffin's company, Hannah's House at Real Solutions Center for Children, said that if someone completes the 40-hour training course the company offers at a cost of $600, Hannah's House is required to give them a certificate that they received training regardless of how much information they retain or what the trainer's impression of that person is.

Dalton said in an e-mail that the court has no legal authority to act on complaints about the supervised visitation monitors and cannot remove monitors from the list.

The court once removed a monitor from the list, but found it did not have the authority to do so. As a result, the monitor was put back on the list, Dalton said.

Chavez-Fallon said unhappy parents can go to a different monitor if they have a complaint.

Making that change is not that easy, however, with parents incurring court costs and attorneys fees to go back to court to get a new visitation order if the parents cannot agree on a new monitor, some familiar with the process said.

Time to get serious about child visitation

Time to get serious about child visitation
by KATHLEEN PARKER

Excerpts:

Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.

How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.

The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.

Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.

First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.

Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate — that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.

While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.

Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.

But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.

Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."

Judge Spencer announces visitation schedule revision - Ohio

Judge Spencer announces visitation schedule revision

Excerpts:

Judge Brett M. Spencer of the Adams County Court of Common Pleas has announced the adoption of a revised Court Rule 16 as it pertains to the visitation schedule with minor children. This revision will replace the previous visitation schedule, and went into effect on Jan. 3 in both domestic and juvenile cases where visitation is an issue.

At the request of Judge Spencer, the Adams County Bar Association formed a committee to review the current visitation schedule and those of surrounding counties. Led by Adams County Bar Association's President Douglas McIlwain, the committee sought to bring the visitation schedule in line with neighboring counties, which have recently increased the amount of time a child spends with the non-custodial parent. Studies have shown that a child's best interest is served by having significant, positive contact with both parents. Towards this end, the revised rule will expand non-custodial parenting time. Copies of this new rule are available from the Clerk of the Adams County Common Pleas Court.

In addition to the revised Rule 16, Judge Spencer has mandated in all new divorce and/or dissolution filings, where minor children are involved, both parents must attend a seminar on custody and parenting issues. The seminar will also be mandatory in all post-decree motions for change of custody and/or visitation, and in juvenile cases wherein custody and/or visitation are an issue.

Bar Association President Douglas Mcllwain, states the revised visitation rule 16 is prospective only, and anyone whose visitation falls under the previous Court Rule 16 will be required to apply to the appropriate division of the court, domestic or juvenile, in order to benefit from the new rule.

A Political Candidate Who Actually Has a Family Rights Platform?

Michael Badnarik ran for President in 2004 as a Libertarian. I highlighted his presidential campaign on this blog as then he had a very similar plank to his platform.

He is now running for Congress in Texas - with family as his first platform plank. Link to his site here and directly to his position on family here.

I am reprinting excerpts from his position on American families below:

Through a simple function of unintended consequences an entire intergovernmental industry has grown up around servicing the remnants of broken families. Tens of thousands of state and county employees and contractors have a vested interest in divorce, custody battles, child-support abuse, and pain.

There has been no counterbalancing force, other than the private-sector activism of victimized non-custodial parents themselves (NCPs), and their advocates. Of course, power goes to the money. With billions of federal aid to support and defend unfair, divisive and destructive policies and biased agencies and courts, there is no rational end in sight. A lot of bureaucrats and otherwise-unnecessary practitioners depend on the continuation of that money, It's going to take some serious money and political power to overcome that.

Millions of parents have been estranged from their children and have lost their homes, families and purposes in life because of what amounts to a federal bounty on broken homes. In recent history, as much as 60% of the costs of administering state agencies that have no incentive to help salvage marriages or keep families together and communicating, has come from the federal government.

Michael Badnarik will work to eliminate all federal welfare to state agencies whose paid function, intentionally or not, is to facilitate the breakup of marriages and act as part of the wedge between parents and their children. And he will work to prohibit any state or county agency who receives any federal funding at all from taking any role in servicing the interests of either parent over the interests of the other.

Divorce must cease being the probable outcome of turning to society for help, and child support must stop serving as the keys to debtors' prison and second-class citizenship.

Vermont Pro Se

Another good site if you are representing yourself in Vermont.

VermontJudiciary.org

Idaho Pro Se Representation

The Court Assistance Office (CAO) is a one-stop clearinghouse to access legal services and other resources for those involved in family law cases and other civil (non-criminal) court matters. There are currently court assistance offices in twenty-three courthouses around Idaho. Some of the court assistance office resources, such as an attorney roster, court forms and instructions, can be accessed directly from this site. For other services and materials you may need to call or visit the Court Assistance Office nearest you. The links below will tell you where to find and how to contact the nearest court assistance office, what services and materials are available there, and how to view or download the roster of attorneys or the court forms and instructions.

CAO Website

Compromise reached on child custody bill - NH

Compromise reached on child custody bill
House agreement is nod to father groups

Excerpts:

Judges would be required to explain in writing what evidence they used in making child custody decisions under a compromise bill recommended by a House panel.

Pro Se divorce in Texas

News 8 Austin

Pro Se divorce in Texas

There is no law requiring a couple to have a lawyer in order to file for a divorce. Someone can file for divorce pro se, which means “for oneself.”

There are a few steps to completing a divorce, and the State Bar Association offers a Pro Se Divorce Handbook.

To file for divorce in Texas, you need to have lived in Texas for six months, including three months in the county in which you file. You must first file an original petition for divorce and pay court costs, which are usually around $200.

You then have to notify your spouse that you have filed for divorce. Your spouse then can file an answer to the divorce suit. Finally, you must request the court to schedule a final divorce hearing. This cannot take place until the divorce petition has been pending for 60 days -- Texas' version of a cooling-off period.

When children and property are involved, a divorce gets more complicated. If there are children, the court will want to ensure that the issues of child support, custody, and visitation are addressed.

There are situations when it is almost always best to hire a lawyer to handle your divorce. For example, if one spouse gets an attorney, the other spouse should try to get a lawyer, assuming one can be afforded.

Also, if children are involved in the divorce it is usually best to hire a lawyer. The same is true when the couple getting divorced owns substantial property or substantial assets.

Senators striving to revamp Family Court- South Carolina

Anderson Independent Mail

Excerpts:

For three of those senators, top goals for the bill include: • Making mediation mandatory for all family court cases. • Reducing marriage-license fees for couples who complete pre-martial counseling. • Updating the formula used to decide how much a parent should pay in child support. • Giving the Family Court system more power to have contempt-of-court charges issued to someone if they fail to pay child support. • Assigning hearing officers to handle minor family court cases, leaving judges to handle the more serious cases.

After listening to concern after concern, Sen. Bryant said he wants to see an incentive given to couples for enrolling in pre-martial counseling. This idea, he said, would hopefully lighten the caseload that family court judges must handle.

But he also wants to see a statewide requirement for pre-trial mediations in family court cases.

"Right now, the families are going directly into court and there it is a battle," Sen. Bryant said.

People's Law School To Convene In Albany - NY

North County Gazette

Excerpts:

ALBANY--The People's Law School, a new initiative presented by the New York State Bar Association, will operate on consecutive Tuesday afternoons from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. beginning on Nov. 15 and running through Dec. 13 in the Great Hall of the Association's Albany headquarters at One Elk Street.

Each People's Law School lecture will last approximately two hours and will feature respected legal experts who will use real-life examples and anecdotes to demonstrate how the law really works in easy-to-understand, interesting and informative sessions.

People's Law School attendees will receive an updated version of the bar association's popular handbook, "Understanding the Law - a Practical Guide for New York State Residents." Each presentation also will be recorded and made available on audiotape, videotape, DVD, and online.

The program is free for those who pre-register. A $5 fee will be charged for those who register at the door. No prior legal education or knowledge is required. To register, please contact the New York State Bar Association Department of Continuing Legal Education at 518-463-3200.

TOPIC: Matrimonial Law including grounds for divorce; models for representation; child custody; an overview of financial issues, such as child support, maintenance and equitable distribution DATE: Tuesday, 11/15/05 SPEAKER(S): Florence M. Fass, Esq., Fass & Greenberg, LLP, Garden City; and Charles P. Inclima, Esq., Biernbaum Inclima & Meyer, LLP, Rochester

TOPIC: You and Your Lawyer will address some of the myths and misconceptions about the legal profession; how to find a lawyer; what to expect in terms of financial arrangements with your attorney; the Client's Bill of Rights DATE: Tuesday, 12/6/05 SPEAKER(S):A. Vincent Buzard, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC, Rochester; and Steven C. Krane, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, NYC

FindLaw.com Launches New 'Family Law Center'

The public site FindLaw has dedicated a portion of the site to issues of Family Law.

Link to it here: Family Law Center

Need Another Example Of How Screwed Up Our Court System Has Become - Here You Go

LAW OF THE LAND

Court: It does take a village when it comes to sexuality. Parents 'have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools'

Excerpts:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

The controversy began in 2001 when a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School set out to conduct a psychological assessment test of students in the first, third and fifth grades. (To first graders!) (emphasis mine)

A letter to parents asked for their consent to conduct the study but did not indicate that questions of a sexual nature would be asked. The survey included 79 questions divided into four parts. Ten of those questions were of a sexual nature.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

Representing Yourself in Court

It seems I have daily inquiries from fathers (or their various supporters) regarding how to proceed legally. Many of these requests come from people who appear to have very little knowledge of the legal system and are lacking the funds necessary to employ legal counsel.

To be clear before I proceed with this post - throughout our entire ordeal we always had an attorney. We tried to be proactive and informed on the course of the law, precedents, expectations, etc... But WE ALWAYS RETAINED COUNSEL. Outside of absolute necessity, I would forgo whatever I had to in order to hire an attorney for such proceedings. They are simply too complicated and too slanted for me to have any faith in my own abilities. I say this even though several members of my immediate family are lawyers (though none practice family law) and could have been excellent resources not available to most Pro Se litigants.

UScourts.gov defines Pro Se as Representing oneself. Serving as one's own lawyer. (As an aside, the entire USCourts site can be an excellent source for understanding legal terminology).

That being said, there are fathers who are representing themselves. Angry Dad has been representing himself (another interesting aside - his ex-wife retained counsel even though she herself was an attorney though she has recently dismissed her lawyer and begun representing herself as well) and you can read about his case going back to August 2004. His case is in California so if that is your state of residence you might find his insights particularly helpful.

Again, however, I have to come back to the advice of retaining counsel if at all possible. I previously made this post Retaining Custody - Step One which discusses finding an appropriate attorney as well as contacting legal aid in your area. Legal aid will inevitably come with severe income restrictions so very few people will qualify but it is worth checking into if your finances are that tight. This post is related but not necessarily relevant to self representation: Retaining Custody - Step Two.

In the forum, I recommended to one poster to contact any local law schools and inquire if they offer a legal aid program or the like. My local law school offers a monthly session where one can ask (supervised) law students legal questions. This is not the same as being assisted by legal aid but it could serve as a good sounding board for a Pro Se litigant.

Many courts are becoming more sympathetic to the needs of those who have to represent themselves and are attempting to make themselves "friendlier." Arizona, for example, has recently approved some changes to make family courts easier to maneuver for those representing themselves (most of the changes will go into effect in January). For more information on the specific changes you can visit kvoa.com or view my post on the article on the October 2005 archive page. Notable from the article are the following: "With 70 percent to 80 percent of litigants in family court cases representing themselves, a prime focus in writing the new rules was to make them understandable to non-lawyers, Armstrong said. Another significant change also explicitly allows lawyers to represent people for just part of a case, Armstrong said. "Many lawyers will not do that now because they believe there are ethical constraints."

If you are considering representing yourself another good source may be your local courthouse. I would contact the clerk or a related office and inquire whether there are any resources available to Pro Se litigants.

At various points in this blog I have provided resources for Pro Se litigants. I will attempt here to reproduce those as well as add any I find to be of use. I cannot provide direct advice about representing yourself because I am not an attorney nor have I ever taken this route; but I will try to highlight some places one could go for direction.

If you are considering representing yourself one of the first things you should know is exactly how divorce and custody laws and statutes are written for your particular state. There are several ways to go about this. You can link to the website for your particular state and here you will probably be able to access the most complete information. I am not from Illinois (congrats to the Sox by the way) but to find Illinois custody law I typed Illinois gov into Google and the first site was the state of Illinois site. (State sites should end in .gov or .us). From here I clicked on the government link, then the legislature link (on the right), then on the Illinois Complied Statues link and finally I scrolled down and clicked on Chapter 750 Families (located under rights and remedies) to find a list including the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act amongst many others. You may have to do a bit of digging but the information should be there. In truth, it took me far longer to write all this up with the links than it took to find the information. I had never been on the Illinois site before but I had a general idea where to go which made the info fairly easy to locate. Also, on the main page there was a search box. I elected not to use this because I did not want to find things piecemeal but you could certainly give it a try and I assume most state sites include a search function.

There are probably easier ways to find variants of this information. I prefer the state sites because the laws can be viewed in their entirety (without someone taking the liberty to paraphrase for you) but admittedly sometimes the state sites can be hard to maneuver. Typing divorce laws by state into Google provided 8,610,000 results. I'll cover the first couple results here. Divorcecentral.com maintains a state list. However, while their information for Indiana took you directly to the correct page on the Indiana State site their information for Illinois was lacking. I would say use at your own risk and try to double check what you are seeing is both accurate and current. The Legal Information Institute (LII) provides an excellent list for state divorce laws.

Along with understanding the divorce statutes, if you have children you will need to understand child custody statutes as well. If you use the method of going through the state site you will easily be able to view both. While the LII does not have a custody list comparable to their divorce list, they certainly offer a lot of relevant information on child custody. The Children's Rights Council hosts a page covering Joint Custody and Shared Parenting Statutes which breaks down the legislation in each state and in many cases provides links to the related state page.

You might also want to look for a support groups or fathers advocacy group in your area. I post them on the blog when I am aware of them and you can always check your local paper. And don't be afraid to use the internet! Sometimes you may have to dig a little or refine your initial search but it can truly be an amazing source of information.

Before I delve into directed Pro Se resources I would like to talk about a couple of just generally good sites for fathers either with or without counsel. Previously I discussed two sites that offer free legal advice on general questions of divorce and custody. Read my original post and link to the sites here.

Another site I previously covered was Childcustody.net. This site is managed by an attorney licensed in Michigan which means while the advice will be credible it will only be directly applicable to Michigan residents. The site is expansive and truly a great resource.

I simply cannot say enough about the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center (SPARC). Go there with a lot of time on your hands because the site is huge and it is all important, relevant, helpful information. SPARC should be one of your first stops on any divorce/custody question. They maintain a page for legal forms, a guide for evaluations, lists of resources by state and a bunch of other stuff like articles, message boards and chat rooms.

When we were going through our case I was extremely interested in child custody precedents. I would think this would be all the more relevant if representing yourself. LII can be a good resource for this but I always preferred lexisone. Lexisone does require registration but it is free to do so.

I have been cataloging sites that I feel to be helpful since the inception of this blog. I know it can be hard to look around on a blog but I assure you there is a lot of information on the archived pages.

Finally, go to your local library and look for books on divorce, custody, self representation, etc... The only cost you will incur through this might be late fees.

Okay, so on to resources specifically for Pro Se litigants:

American Pro Se Association: There doesn't appear to be much here unless you want to pay the $50 annual fee to be a "premium member." I tried to access a couple things but was restricted - never having been a premium member I couldn't even venture a guess if this is a worthwhile investment. Under the category Library it appears you can access some basic forms. A lot of the site was not yet operative and I couldn't access much formative regarding Family Law & Divorce without a membership.

The Pro Se Law Center has links to search for Pro Se programs as well as lists of court Pro Se services. I didn't find anything for my county but maybe you will have better luck.

PRO SE HANDBOOK - The Manual for the Litigant Filing Without Counsel. Though this was written for Idaho it may very well be a good general read to help one get familiar with court terminology and methods.

Nolawyer.com appears to exist primarily to get you to purchase something. There are a couple useful links and at least one free form that I came across. There is also a search function at the bottom of the page. The site also contains the WIZARDLAW COLLECTION OF PRO-SE LINKS. The first couple I clicked were dead links but a few were active and the list is fairly large so try at your risk.

Searching for Pro Se on Divorceinfo.com provides 155 results - most of which are categorized by state. When I clicked on the Minnesota results the only questions it answered were how hard it was to file for divorce, what paperwork needed to be filed and the cost of filing. This might be helpful to someone just initiating a divorce.

NYCourthelp.gov has a forms library that includes family law, divorce and civil forms.

The New Jersey judiciary maintains the site njcourtsonline.com which has specific resources and supports for Pro Se litigants. This is an excellent site if you are a New Jersey resident except very little of it deals with family law issues. There are two direct family links dealing with enforcement of an order in a family law case as well as a family part case information statement.

The Connecticut judiciary maintains a page for FAQ's on self representation.

NOLO also offers a How to Represent Yourself in Court FAQ. On the same page you can see other NOLO articles related to Pro Se litigants.

Colorado offers What You Need to Know About Representing Yourself in Court.

As do Maine, Utah, Vermont, Delaware, Wisconsin and DC in their respective forms.

What It Means To Represent Yourself In A Legal Matter is an article about self representation in Michigan.

California has SHARP (Self-Help Assistance and Referral Program) 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. 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 SHARP center in Oroville is located in the old downtown courthouse, 1931 Arlin Rhine Drive. For more information, call 530-532-7015.

These were sites or programs that I had been emailed or had bookmarked. Surely there are more out there and I would be happy to post more. If you are aware of a helpful Pro Se program or resource please either email it to me or post it in the comments section.

UPDATE: I just learned MIsForMalevolent is also a father representing himself Pro Se. His case is based in New Jersey.

UPDATE 11/16/05: Larry Holland is a father going Pro Se in Michigan. His blog can be seen here. Also, link to my post Pro Se Divorce in Texas which includes a link to the Texas State Bar Association's Pro Se Handbook.

Update 12/5/05: Idaho Pro Se Representation

UPDATE 12/9/05: Additional info for going pro se in Vermont

UPDATE 2/7/06: Information about filing a complaint against the Friend of the Court (FOC) in Michigan.

UPDATE 3/8/06: Lawdragon: A site that allows evaluations be submitted of judges and lawyers.

UPDATE 3/27/06: Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info, Alaska

UPDATE 4/4/06: Arizona Divorce, Custody & Support Info

UPDATE 4/24/06: Uncontested Case for Divorce in California

State courts to use new rules for family law cases - Arizona

State courts to use new rules for family law cases

Excerpts:

Arizona's top judge on Wednesday signed an order to implement a massive new set of statewide rules just for family law cases. Most of the rules take effect in January.

Along with divorce and child support, types of cases and issues covered by the rules include child custody, legal separation, paternity and protective orders.

With 70 percent to 80 percent of litigants in family court cases representing themselves, a prime focus in writing the new rules was to make them understandable to non-lawyers, Armstrong said.

Another significant change also explicitly allows lawyers to represent people for just part of a case, Armstrong said. "Many lawyers will not do that now because they believe there are ethical constraints."

With the change, "they can come in just for child support or just for child custody," Armstrong said. "It should allow more people to afford an attorney for the most critical issues."

In an attempt to resolve cases faster, courts now will be required to hold a "resolution management conference" early on to see if the opposing sides can be encouraged to work out their differences on key issues.

ACFC CAMPAIGNS

The following come directly from an email from the ACFC (America's Shared Parenting Organization):

ACFC BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

On another front, ACFC IS TAKING THE FAMILY COURT REFORM BATTLE DIRECTLY TO THE STREETS. Today, the first of two billboards blasting the family court was erected in Champaign, Illinois. The billboard calls directly on the local family court judge, Arnold Blockman, to reform the family court. Late tomorrow another billboard will go up and beginning next week radio spots will run for a month encouraging family court reform.

A group of concerned parents came forward and asked ACFC to assist them with this task. Those parents were afraid of retaliation if they acted on their own, so we are doing this together. They want change and are willing to band together with their time and money to make it happen. We'll keep you informed as the campaign progresses. Acting together we can get things done.



PBS DOCUMENTARY ON ABUSE; ABUSES FATHERS

Tomorrow night PBS stations around the country will air Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. October is national domestic violence awareness month. This documentary presents a one-sided view of domestic abuse designed specifically to prejudice the courts and public against fathers by portraying us primarily as child abusers.

WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK ON FATHERS, THEIR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

The group RADAR has been actively working for change in the area of domestic abuse reporting. RADAR monitors the media and responds to inaccurate and misleading reporting with the FACTS. RADAR has issued an alert regarding this program and asks you to take specific action. Read and respond here.

ACFC is also supporting Glenn Sacks and joining with several of our affiliates and other organizations calling on PBS to provide the opportunity to respond to this misguided, prejudicial programming. Our goal is to let PBS know this type of biased reporting posing as responsible journalism should not be tolerated. Click here to read more and TAKE ACTION.

As an interesting side note, the film's producer's called ACFC in April indicating they wanted an interview in an effort to provide balance to the piece. Subsequently they backed out of the scheduled interview indicating they had enough footage and would 'get back to us' if they needed anything further. I can only assume that 'balance' was sacrificed to the political agenda of the sponsors on this one. Let us know what you think.

Group aims to ease divorce issues- MA

Daily News Tribune - Local News Coverage

Excerpts:

The Divorce Center begins "Massachusetts Divorce in a Nutshell," a free 5-week seminar series for women and men who are separating and divorcing. Sessions will be held on Tuesdays from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the West Suburban Chamber of Commerce on South Street.

Local attorneys, financial experts and a probate court judge will cover the basics of divorce, alimony and child support, child custody and the division of assets. They will provide insight about lawyer's fees, separation agreements, tax implications and even what to expect when entering a courtroom.

The center will also be presenting "A Divorce Play in Four Acts" on Saturday at Newton North High School. The interactive play follows a "husband" and "wife" as they meet with their attorneys, attend court hearings and learn about financial considerations.

For more information about the "Massachusetts Divorce in a Nutshell" seminar series, visit www.divorcenter.org or call 617-227-9713.

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' - Phyllis Schlafly

I will likely reprint most of this article but that should not stop you from visiting the source: Human Events Online - Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' by Phyllis Schlafly.

Also, this article mentions Michigan legislation HB 5100 which I mentioned here, more information can be found on the Michigan Legislature site as well as in the Dads of Michigan Forum.

On to the article:

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment'
by Phyllis Schlafly

Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq to defend home and country. But they never dreamed they might lose their children, too.

When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court "referee" had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and given full custody and control to the boy's mother.

For five years, McNeilly had had a 50-50 no-problem custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas.

While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody "points" against him.

"You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away," McNeilly said. "It's devastating."

Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General's office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.

Jones has introduced legislation (HB 5100) providing that absences for military service cannot be used against a parent and that a permanent custody arrangement cannot be established while a parent is on active duty. He is hearing from legislators in other states who want to sponsor similar bills.

Since McNeilly's case was reported in the press, Erb's lawyer and the court's representative are trying to claim that depriving him of his father's rights wasn't because he was serving in Iraq, but because of his poor parenting skills.

The proof? McNeilly sent a couple of postcards to his son that showed soldiers training with a gun. Horrors! How un-politically correct to tell a son that soldiers in Iraq carry guns.

Erb's lawyer asserted that the postcards frightened the boy and showed that McNeilly is not a fit parent. But surely the boy had a right to know about his father's career and that soldiers who use guns are pursuing an honorable vocation.

The referee's report also justified deciding for mother custody because she was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. But that's what mothers have always done when their men go off to war and it's no argument for taking the child away from his father upon return.

Day-to-day caretaker is feminist jargon to promote their ideology that the mother should have full custody and control because the father is not around to change diapers and do household chores. He is merely working a job, or sometimes two jobs, to support his family.

Follow the money to explain some of the motivation. When the mother was given full custody, the court ordered McNeilly to pay her $525 a month, which she would lose if they return to joint custody.

The real problem in this case is the arrogance of family courts, which claim the right to decide child custody based on their subjective personal opinions about the "best interest of the child." Family court judges, and the psychologists and referees they hire, routinely violate the fundamental right of parents to make their own decisions about the best interest of their own children.

Family courts are subjective and arbitrary, so unlucky divorced parents could get a judge or a referee who is anti-gun, or anti-military, or anti-spanking, or anti-homeschooling, or anti-religion, or a feminist who wants to transform the middle class into a matriarchal society as has already been done to the welfare class, with tragic results.

The notion that family court judges, psychologists and referees can impose personal views about what is "the best interest of the child" rather than a child's own parents is just another way of saying "it takes a village to raise a child." Thousands of good fathers have been deprived of their fundamental rights in the care and upbringing of their children by courts that treat fathers as good for nothing more than a paycheck.

The large number of fathers who have been the victims of family-court fatherphobia is no doubt the reason that one of the most popular songs on country music stations this year is Tim McGraw's "Do You Want Fries with That?" The lyrics are the cry of a father who is working a minimum-wage second job in a fast-food restaurant, living alone in a tent, after being ordered by a judge to support his children living in his house with his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

The father laments, "You took my wife, and you took my kids, and you stole the life that I used to live; my pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat."

Free family law clinic through end of month - Utah

Salt Lake Tribune - Utah

Utah Legal Services begins sponsoring a free family law clinic this month.

Staffed by University of Utah law students and attorney volunteers, the clinic will assist people who need help in the areas of divorce, protective orders and custody.

The clinics will be held between 6 and 7:30 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in room W19 of the Matheson Courthouse, 450 S. State St. in Salt Lake City.

A presentation to address frequently asked questions will be held at the beginning of the meeting, so attendees are asked to arrive on time at 6 p.m.

An unusual decision in custody case - New York

Newsday.com: An unusual decision in custody case

Even though this mother has previously demonstrated that she could not be expected to fully comply with her custody arrangement and that the parents have joint custody - this judge decided she could move the child out of the country provided she put up a bond guaranteeing monthly visitation.

The judge said, "Visitation with a parent is not the privilege of the parent but the right of the child. Both [the father and the boy] must have this right preserved by maximizing defendant's opportunity to maintain a positive and nurturing father-son relationship.” Which can apparently be accomplished through a monthly visit. Right.

Why not leave the child in New York and provide the mother with as liberal of a visitation schedule as she desires. Then she doesn’t have to come up with huge upfront costs, can elect to pay for her own travel expenses and the child does not have to be removed from his father and community simply since Mom’s new husband works in Canada…

Move away cases drive me crazy – if one parent wants to move there is certainly no compelling reason to keep them from doing so. However, their elective choice should not be an excuse to disrupt the parent/child relationship with their ex. If you want to move – go for it – but don’t expect to be able to take your child. Part of having children is sacrifice – you may have to sacrifice your desire to go wherever in order to support your child in the most loving and stable manner possible. Eventually the child will be old enough and out of the house where you can move wherever your little heart desires. In the meantime, deal with the fact that you have already handicapped your child by divorcing their other parent and try to do the best thing for them considering.

These remarriage move away cases are the epitome of selfish.

Excerpts:

Jodi Ann Fischtein wanted her 11-year-old son to move to Canada with her.

But she and her ex-husband had joint custody of the boy, and the father wanted him to stay in New York.

After a 28-day trial in Central Islip, State Supreme Court Justice John Bivona made a rather novel decision.

The boy could go with his mother and new stepfather, who had been commuting to New York from Toronto. But Fischtein had to put up a $60,000 bond ensuring the father's visitation at least once a month, and pay his travel and hotel expenses.

"Visitation with a parent is not the privilege of the parent but the right of the child. Both [the father and the boy] must have this right preserved by maximizing defendant's opportunity to maintain a positive and nurturing father-son relationship," Bivona wrote in the recent decision.

However, he added the mother's "past conduct does raise concern as to whether she will cooperate and abide by the order of this court." Bivona directed that Fischtein post a $60,000 bond in the escrow account of the lawyer for her ex-husband, John Andrade, until her son becomes 18.

"This is very unusual," said Friedman. "I think the judge was concerned that the relocation he was allowing was out of the country and out of U.S. jurisdiction ... and there could be problems for the father jurisdictionally if there is a proceeding for enforcement."

In requiring the bond, Bivona cited instances in which Fischtein had interfered with Andrade's access to his son since the couple's divorce last year.

"Based on past history, plaintiff has dictated terms of visitation according to her whim," the judge wrote. Despite a separation agreement and both having joint custody, "plaintiff acts unilaterally."

Law firm is advocate for divorcing dads - Indianapolis

Law firm is advocate for divorcing dads

Excerpts:

Joseph E. Cordell says he became a lawyer so he could represent the underdog. He ended up creating a law firm dedicated to helping men and fathers during divorce.

Based in St. Louis, Cordell & Cordell recently opened a Downtown Indianapolis office at 101 W. Ohio St.

Cordell & Cordell will present "The 10 Most Stupid Mistakes Men Make When Facing Divorce," a free seminar for men going through a divorce, contemplating one or wanting to modify an existing decree. Speakers will be Joseph Cordell, Scott C. Trout and Erik Carter, an attorney based in the Indianapolis office.
• When: Thursday, 6:30 to 9 p.m.
• Where: The Westin, 50 S. Capitol Ave.
• RSVP: (317) 322-0122.

A new way to treat children of divorce - NH

The Telegraph Online

Excerpts:

Divorcing couples with children will find a change of procedure in New Hampshire’s court system starting Oct. 1.

A new law aimed at making divorce less hostile allows judges to refer parents to mediation when they are unable to agree on how much time their children will spend with either mom or dad as part of broader custody issues.

The law, however, would not apply to cases where domestic violence has been an issue.

Lawyers who deal in divorces and other family issues hope the law will encourage parents to settle custody disputes themselves by setting up a plan for shared child-rearing responsibilities rather than having a judge impose a top-down solution.
It could be a less costly and quicker resolution of custody issues and a happier outcome for children who are the unhappy bystanders in a marital breakup.

The law, approved by the Legislature as part of a bill called the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, is the product of a task force that studied ways to reform divorce and other aspects of family law in the state.

Under the law, lawyers and others familiar with divorce proceedings hope parents, through mediation, will work cooperatively to set up visiting schedules, holiday participation, school attendance and living arrangements that best meet their kids’ needs rather than their own.

Events in Michigan

Dads of Michigan have the following events coming up:

Healing Our Families, A Time For Change - June 16-18 Family Rights Coalition and DADS of Michigan Conference 05

The Family Rights Coalition and DADS of Michigan are hosting an international conference on family issues June 16-18, 2005 at the Metro Detroit Airport Marriott Hotel. Many internationally known speakers will be presenting. The purpose of this conference is to present and discuss international issues on family issues and parenting. Stay tuned to this link for future updates.

DADS of Michigan Family Court Basics Workshop, June 25

MOMS and DADS University is featuring a Family Court Basics program at the Birmingham Community House on June 25. This program will provide instruction on how to navigate family court and obtain the results to ensure that you are involved in your children's life. You will learn basic tools for custody guidelines, child support calculation, visitation enforcement, selecting a lawyer, protecting yourself from false allegations, and much more. Many leading authorities on Family Court will be speaking. This program is designed to help you avoid costly legal fees and help you understand how to navigate the courts and the FOC.

For more details click here: EDUCATION - Mom's and Dad's University

Legal Help Line - Indianapolis

From Indystar.com

Free monthly legal hotline to be available Tuesday

A monthly service offering free legal advice will be available again Tuesday.

Legal Line, sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar Association, will be offered from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. By calling (317) 269-2000, anyone can speak with a qualified attorney, who will help answer questions and give advice.

Volunteer attorneys will be there to help answer questions on many topics, including bankruptcy, child custody and support, divorce, employment law and personal injury.

The bar association created the hotline as a community service. It is available the second Tuesday of every month.

Those needing help with more complex legal issues can call the bar association's referral service at (317) 269-2222. That service is offered from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

This is the entire article so you can all feel as I sick as I do.... How on earth can a parent's constitutional right to move be equivalent to their child's constitutional right to two INVOLVED parents - not to mention the other parent's constitutional right to PARENT THEIR CHILD.

"Huge" rulings on divorce
Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

By Mike McPhee Denver Post Staff Writer

In two related rulings this week, the Colorado Supreme Court significantly changed family law by making it easier for divorcing or already-divorced parents to move to another state.

Helen Shreves, a family-law attorney and mediator for 25 years, called the rulings "groundbreaking." One case deals with parents in the process of divorcing, the other with parents already divorced. Shreves said they could affect 15 percent to 20 percent of all Colorado divorce cases.

"This is a very significant change in the law," she said. "Until now, you literally couldn't leave the state while your divorce was in process. Or your spouse could get a restraining order and bring you back. Now you can leave.

"The second case protects the parent's constitutional right to travel after the divorce, saying it is just as important as the child's best interests."

Suzanne Griffiths, a family-law attorney for 25 years, called the ruling "huge."
"It not only will cause the filing of a large number of requests to relocate by parents who were told they couldn't leave, but it will also have an enormous effect on couples contemplating divorce," she said.

"This will cause many couples to think twice about getting a divorce, if they know one of them can take the child to another state for good reason such as a job or family."

In the first case, Jennifer Spahmer and Todd Gullete had a child in September 2001. The relationship ended, and during the divorce process Spahmer wanted to move to Arizona with the child to be near her family and to take a new job.

But a trial court denied her request, stating it was in the child's best interests for both parents to live in Colorado. Spahmer appealed.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court, stating that parenting time must be arranged in the best interest of the child. But "nothing (in the statutes) authorizes a trial court to allocate parenting time by ordering a parent to live in a specific locale."

Hence, "the (trial) court must accept the location in which each party intends to live (then) allocate parental responsibilities accordingly in the best interest of the child."

In the second case, Michelle and Christopher Ciesluk divorced amicably in 2002 after seven years of marriage and one child. Five months later, the mother found a job in Arizona near her family. So she asked the court for permission to move with the child to Arizona and offered a modified plan allowing the father to have the child four times a year.

The trial court rejected her proposal on the grounds it would adversely affect the father's relationship with the child. It ordered the parents to remain in close proximity.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court hadn't protected the mother's constitutional right to travel - "the right to migrate, resettle, find a new job and start a new life."

Hence, the parents right to travel (according the Colorado Supreme Court) is more important the child's relationship with their parent. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in reference to custody - you have to see how sick this is.

Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

FOXNews.com - Views - ifeminists - Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts

Excerpts:

Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested a 1998 Massachusetts law that requires a non-custodial parent to have court certification as a non-batterer on a yearly basis before he (or she) is allowed access to their children's school records. The school system currently views all
non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until proven innocent. But all that is going to change.


The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to see the academic class list for his 17-year-old daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No charge or complaint had ever been filed against Fassler; he is on good terms with his ex-wife and children.

When the school refused the class list, Fassler not only got angry, he also got active. Last October, he complained to the Family Policy Compliance Office at the U.S. Department of Education, challenging the statute as discriminatory. On May 6, the DOE sent a letter to
Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, which warned that "the commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years."

The letter explained, "non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to school records unless there is evidence those 'rights have been specifically revoked'." The government cannot stand between parent and child when no evidence of abuse is present.

Father's rights advocates had fought against the law since its passage. (Indeed, Fassler belongs to Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that battle.) Suddenly, however, with millions in federal funding at stake, Driscoll has indicated that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents more fairly.

This is another lesson from the Massachusetts struggle. Grassroots organizations and actions can prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it is crucial to "follow the money." The crusade against the 1998 statute won out only when Fassler called federal funding into question.

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.

Legal Services For Underprivileged - Virginia

WCAV Legal Services For Underprivileged

The University of Virginia Law School is teaming up with Hunton & Williams to provide free legal services to low-income Charlottesville residents.

The pilot program began in the fall with eight law students and four lawyers housed in The Legal Aid Justice Center, who also refers most of the clients.

"We'll be handling primarily immigration alyssum cases, which is what we piloted this year, and then family law and domestic violence cases," said Kimberly Emery of UVa School of Law.

Family law clients will include domestic matters such as child custody, support, and divorce. The work is primarily volunteer with a long-term goal in mind.

"[The goal is] to expose law students to a structured and well supervised pro-bono experience while in law school with a hope that they will learn to do pro bono and as they practice will continue to do pro bono," said Emery.

The partnership currently works out of 1000 Preston Ave., but will move to the nearby Rock House after renovation.

Nicholas Stix: This is Your Brain on the New York Times

Nicholas Stix: This is Your Brain on the New York Times

This is a reaction to the piece "“This Is Your Brain on Motherhood,” that ran in the New York Times.

Collaborative divorce is gaining fans in Santa Fe - New Mexico

Article available at the Free New Mexican

Excerpts:

Divorce is almost always emotionally and financially painful for couples. But it doesn’t have to end in a costly, all-out war over the house, the bank account, the kids — or even the cat.

Collaborative practice is different from mediation, where a neutral, third party helps the disputing parties settle their case. In collaborative practice, the spouses and their attorneys make these decisions in fourway discussions.

In some cases, the divorcing couple might select a specialist to represent their children and a neutral financial expert in addition to their collaborative lawyers.

Advocates say this model is cheaper and faster than traditional divorce, reduces family conflict and results in higher compliance with agreements.

You keep control of the process without going to court. Children’s needs are given priority. You and your partner commit to reaching agreement through a problem-solving approach. An atmosphere of respect preserves self-esteem. Open communication provides tools for effective problem solving in the future. There is full disclosure of facts and information. Face-to-face meetings allow for mutually created resolutions. Process helps couple plan for their futures.

Bill could help avoid paying support -Florida

Tallahassee Democrat 04/19/2005 Bill could help avoid paying support

What a SICK title - as if not wanting to pay for a child that is not yours is AVOIDANCE!!

Excerpts:

Men who get DNA tests to disprove paternity could avoid paying child support, under a bill Rep. Curtis Richardson steered through a key House panel Monday.

Some members of the House Justice Council objected that "the best interests of the child" were being trumped by belated proof that a man ordered to pay support was not the biological father of a child. But Richardson, D-Tallahassee, said his bill would not allow men to escape financial obligations if they have previously acknowledged fatherhood, adopted a child or tried to stop some other man from assuming parental responsibility.

Former state Sen. Fred Dudley, representing The Florida Bar family-law section, said it was important the bill only applies to future child-support orders "so we're not subjecting literally tens of thousands of child-support orders out there to a new rule about collateral attacks on the judgments." Dudley also said judges "always need to use the 'best-interests-of-the-child test' in making this determination" to end child support. (Read: Let's not give men who are currently paying support for children they did not father a reprieve.)

If a man has adopted a child, or has consented to being listed on a birth certificate as a baby's father, he could not change his mind and try to get out of child support under the bill. Richardson said if a man has stopped some other man from adopting a child or asserting fatherhood, he could not later renounce paternity and stop paying.

Richardson said men would have to file an affidavit in court stating that they do not think they fathered a child and would have to pay for DNA testing. A judge could require the mother to have the child tested.

Rep. John Quinones, R-Kissimmee, objected strenuously to the bill. He said some children have bonded with men they believe are their fathers, who may have accepted responsibility for years before getting suspicious and having a DNA test.

"You have children who are essentially going to be bastardized," Quinones said. "You have sperm donors and then you have fathers, and when someone has raised a child as their own for this many years ... they should continue their obligation."

But Rep. Mark Mahon, R-Jacksonville, said as a family-law attorney, he has had to explain to men that they must continue paying child support for children they can prove are not theirs.

"The courts are supposed to be searchers for truth," Mahon said. "It's very difficult to explain to a man that DNA testing can get someone off Death Row, but DNA proving they are not the father cannot get them relieved of a support order."

A companion bill (SB 1456) by Sen. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and is pending in the Children and Families Committee.

Case Law & Other Constitutionally Related Stuff

This is a link to a site that highlights relevant case law:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT

And PARENTING AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Fatherhood faces stacked deck in family court

From townhall.com

Fatherhood faces stacked deck in family court
Phyllis Schlafly

January 31, 2005


It's not just gay adoptions that threaten the right of children to be raised in traditional two-parent, mother-father homes. A threat also comes from father-phobic family courts that deprive children of their fathers.

Under no-fault divorce, equality is the rule: Either spouse can terminate a marriage without the other spouse's consent and without any fault committed by the cast-off spouse or even alleged by the spouse initiating the divorce.

When it comes to determining child custody, however, sexism is the rule. By making allegations of fault (true or false, major or petty) against the male, the female can usually get the family court to grant her their children and his money.

Despite an extended string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody and control of their children (reaffirmed in a 2000 case), and despite a very high standard that the government must meet in order to terminate parental legal rights, fathers are routinely denied due process when it comes to determining child custody after divorce.

Family courts use a highly subjective rule called the best interest of the child as recommended by court-appointed child-custody evaluators or psychotherapists. There is no requirement that they have first-hand experience with raising children, and they are allowed to use their own personal prejudices to overrule the parents.

But why aren't parents the ones best able to decide what is in the best interest of the child?

Family courts routinely rubber-stamp child-custody evaluators who recommend maternal custody with fathers getting so-called visitation only every other weekend. This despite the mountain of social science research presented in Warren Farrell's book, "Father and Child Reunion" (Tarcher; $24.95), which proves that the best interest of the child of divorced parents is usually to give the child equally shared parent time.

Two dozen different measures listed in Farrell's book indicate that equally shared custody is better for children than maternal custody alone. Farrell's book explains how most fathers provide benefits that mothers usually don't.

Yet, family courts typically rule as though fathers have no value except their money, and routinely banish fathers (who have not been proven to have committed any misdeed) from the lives of their children, except for every other weekend. Farrell describes how this typical custody pattern is a loser for the child, causing intense feelings of deprivation and depressive behavior.

In his new book "Twice Adopted" (Broadman & Holman: $24.99), Michael Reagan tells how, as the child of divorced parents, he only got to see his father, former President Ronald Reagan, on alternating Saturdays. He wrote, "To an adult two weeks is just two weeks. But to a child, having to wait two weeks to see your father is like waiting forever."

American courts are presumed to be based on an adversarial system with each side arguing its best case, subject to standards of due process, evidence and proof. Somehow, that doesn't function in family courts.

Some divorce lawyers advise wives to manipulate the process by using a three-step technique: (1) make domestic violence or child abuse allegations, (2) demand full custody, (3) collect large amounts of child support, alimony, and legal fees.

If the father objects to this process, the wife can make more accusations. The evaluators then call it a high-conflict divorce and give custody to the wife, declaring that shared parenting won't work.

If the husband doesn't acquiesce, he is reprimanded by the court for "not buying into the process." In trying to defend himself against accusations, the father is denied the basic rights of a criminal defendant such as presumption of innocence and the necessity that the accuser provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Family courts force fathers to submit to interrogations and evaluations by court-chosen child-custody evaluators. Fathers are forced to pay the high fees of these private practitioners whom they have not hired, whose services they do not want, and whose credentials and bias are suspect.

The children are also subjected to these evaluators who attempt to turn the children against their parents in unrecorded interviews.

One of the most un-American aspects of family court procedure is the sentencing of fathers to attend re-education classes and psychotherapy sessions to induce them to admit fault and to indoctrinate them in government-approved parenting behavior. The court-approved psychotherapists report back to the court on the father's supposed progress, and his attendance at these Soviet-style re-education sessions must continue until he conforms.

A cozy relationship exists among local lawyers and court-approved psychotherapists who recommend each other for this highly paid work of making evaluations, counseling, and conducting re-education classes. The psychotherapists decline to challenge each other's recommendations or question their competence, and lawyers decline to cross-examine them, because they all want to continue the profitable practice of referring business to each other and collecting fees from fathers who are desperate to see their own children.

Judge: Divorce cases skewed toward women

This article is from the New York Daily News and could be accessed here but I believe they only leave articles available for a short time.


Judge: Divorce cases skewed toward women
BY JOE MAHONEYDAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

One of New York's top judges started tongues wagging after suggesting divorce leaves men with the short end of the stick when it's time to divvy up the dough.

In a speech last week, Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith suggested courts aren't always gender-neutral - and the marriage contract is often skewed in favor of the woman, according to the New York Law Journal.

In divorce cases involving working women and stay-at-home husbands, Smith said he suspects men still don't get their fair share.

"I read a case where the wife was a dental hygienist and the husband said, 'That's marital property.' The court said, 'You're right, it is marital property. You are getting 7%,'" the Law Journal quoted Smith saying Thursday in a speech to the Family Law Section of the New York State Bar Association.

A spokesman for the Court of Appeals said Smith had no additional comments about the controversial speech.

"It's not something he wants to comment on further," spokesman Gary Spencer said.

Claims of a pro-female tilt ignore the harsh financial realities of divorce, said Marcia Pappas, head of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women.

"Judge Smith is out of touch with real families," Pappas said. "How he thinks the system favors women is really surprising to me. I'm not sure what he's basing his personal opinions on."

But prominent New York divorce lawyer Eleanor Alter, whose clients have included Christie Brinkley and Mia Farrow, hailed Smith for adding some spice to the "discussion and disagreement" over matrimonial law.

"It's great that he said it," Alter said. "If we get to the point where we can only say what's politically correct, then we're in pretty bad shape."

ABA

The ABA website has a search engine where you can come by some interesting and helpful info.

Here is a question I stumbled upon:

How many states allow divorcing parents to have joint legal custody of their children? How many states have a presumption in favor of joint legal custody?

All states permit parents to have joint legal custody of their children after a divorce. As of 1996, 43 states and the District of Columbia have statutes that specifically authorize the courts to order joint custody. (In some states, joint custody is referred to as shared custody.) In the 43 states with joint legal custody statutes, 11 states and the District of Columbia declare a presumption in favor of joint custody, which means that courts are supposed to grant joint custody unless there is proof that joint custody is not in the child's best interest. In addition, eight states declare a presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree to it. The remaining 24 states with joint custody statutes make joint custody an explicit option without any presumption for or against joint custody. Seven states do not have joint custody statutes, but courts in those states can use their equitable powers to order joint custody in appropriate circumstances. Joint custody usually is considered appropriate when the parents appear willing to cooperate in raising their children.

And this links to a chart by state

Law aids paternity fraud victims

Washington Times

Law aids paternity fraud victims
By Cheryl Wetzstein

A lawyer says she has helped seven California men escape erroneous child support orders, though another man, who has been fighting his order for almost a decade, is waiting for his day in court this month.

California "paternity fraud" victims are finding relief under a landmark 2004 court decision and a law that went into effect Jan. 1. Both offer opportunities for courts to overturn established child support obligations for men who can prove they are not the fathers.

In just the past few weeks, "I have overturned seven [men's cases]. ... They're off the hook," Santa Ana, Calif., lawyer Linda S. Ferrer told The Washington Times last week.

All seven men had been assigned child support orders by default, which means they weren't in court to defend themselves, she said. Two of the men had been close enough to the mothers to have once had a relationship with the children, but the other five "had never met the mother," Miss Ferrer said.

News has spread, and she said she has heard from fathers from "all over the state" asking for help.

Meanwhile, Taron G. James of Torrance, Calif., founder of Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud, is eagerly awaiting his Jan. 25 court date.

"I am trying to get my name cleared as the father of this child that isn't mine and I don't even know," said Mr. James, a Navy veteran from the Gulf war.

Mr. James admits he had an affair with the mother, but it ended a year before her child was born in 1992. A DNA test obtained in 2001 excluded him as the child's father.

In addition to relief from the child support order, Mr. James wants restitution for the estimated $12,000 taken from him in child support and $38,000 he has spent fighting the system since 1996. A separate suit, filed in civil court, seeks monetary damages from the mother and Los Angeles county officials, all of whom defrauded him, said his lawyer, Marc Angelucci.

Paternity fraud cases typically languished until two pivotal events last year.

The first was a June court decision in the case of Whittier, Calif., construction worker Manuel Navarro.

Mr. Navarro's saga started in 1996, when a woman who lived in his neighborhood named "Manuel Nava" as the father of her twin boys. Child support officials assumed Mr. Navarro was the father and sent a summons to his sister's home. When Mr. Navarro didn't respond within 30 days, the court established a $247-a-month child support order for him by default.

This "default" practice is not uncommon in California. More than 70 percent of the state's child support orders were established by default — a rate that is "dramatically higher" than in other states, Urban Institute researchers said in a 2003 study of California's child support system.

In 2001, with DNA proof that he was not the father, Mr. Navarro, represented by Miss Ferrer, sued to have his child support order thrown out. A lower court refused, saying too much time
had elapsed, but Mr. Navarro won on appeal.

The county "should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded," the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District said in its June 30 decision. "[W]hen a mistake occurs in a child support action, the county must correct it, not exploit it," it added.

Child support officials quickly moved to get the Navarro decision "depublished" or rendered moot for use in court. But in November, the California Supreme Court denied their request, and the law stands.

The second pivotal event came in September when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a paternity fraud law called AB 252, which allows men to challenge established child support orders under limited circumstances. It went into effect Jan. 1.

A spokeswoman for the California Department of Child Support Services told The Washington Times that it has been updating its officials on AB 252. Child support workers, she added, are using better tools to locate fathers, which means fewer default orders are issued.

Judge dismisses challenge to state child support laws

This is reference to the case I discussed here.

Judge dismisses challenge to state child support laws

12/29/2004, 3:07 p.m. ET
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN The Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A judge has dismissed a Hudson Valley father's constitutional challenge to New York's child support laws, ruling federal court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the state's income-based support guidelines violate parents' rights.

Harold Rosenberger sued Ulster Family Court and the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance in April. The Highland man claimed New York's Family Court Act and Domestic Relations Law infringe on a parent's right to determine "how much money a parent spends on the care and maintenance of his or her child."

U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe dismissed the suit last week, concluding any challenges to the Family Court order affecting Rosenberger belong in state appellate courts. Rosenberger promptly filed for reconsideration, claiming the judge's reasoning is wrong, and that his suit intends to overturn the laws themselves on behalf of all New Yorkers.

Rosenberger was divorced June 17, 1999, from Cynthia Cashman, who filed Family Court petitions for child support and sole custody of their three children, according to court papers.

On Jan. 24, 2002, Rosenberger was ordered by Ulster Family Court to pay child support of $325.69 per week and 73 percent of all unreimbursed health expenses. On March 21, 2002, the OTDA arranged to have the money taken from his paycheck.

In federal court, he claimed the state laws infringed on his right to privacy and due process.
Sharpe ruled that while the U.S. Supreme Court may review state court judgments, the lower federal courts cannot. And while Rosenberger argued he is challenging the constitutionality of the state laws, not his own Family Court order, Sharpe found them "inextricably intertwined."

"Finally, this court would be outside the bounds of its jurisdiction in addressing subjects of domestic relations which clearly `belong to the laws of the States,'" Sharpe wrote, citing a 1990 decision from the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

Rosenberger, a computer programmer representing himself in court, said Wednesday he has petitioned Sharpe for reconsideration and that state laws must align with federal law. If that fails, he plans to appeal to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where he has a separate case pending over New York's custody laws.

"The Supreme Court has said you can raise your children as you see fit," Rosenberger said. "People don't think of it as a constitutional right, which it really is."

LAGGING BEHIND THE TIMES: PARENTHOOD, CUSTODY, AND GENDER BIAS IN THE FAMILY COURT

This is a VERY interesting and informative look at family courts and bias against fathers. However, it is simply way too large to reprint...

Law.fsu.edu

Do fathers have the edge in divorce?

Another article by Cathy Young: Do fathers have the edge in divorce?

It is a common perception that while women may face bias in some areas, men are on the receiving end of discrimination when it comes to child custody - which goes to fathers, recent data show, only 16 percent of the time. Some feminists, like former National Organization for Women President Karen DeCrow, embrace equal rights for divorced dads. Yet many others have been loath to acknowledge that there is bias favoring women in anything.

Mostly, these feminists argue, fathers don't want custody - and when they do, they have the edge: Judges frown on working women who spend less time with the kids than did traditional moms, while working men who spend more time with the kids than did traditional fathers are hailed as great dads; non-working women may be denied custody because they can't support the children.

In the 1986 book Mothers on Trial, radical feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler claimed that 70 percent of mothers in custody battles lost. This was based on a very non-random sample of 60 women, mostly referred by feminist lawyers or women's centers. While even sympathetic reviewers commented on the sloppiness of Chesler's research, her "finding" that fathers are likely to win contested custody cases was often presented as fact.

Similar numbers have cropped up again, most recently in Karen Winner's Divorced From Justice: "Contrary to public belief, 70 percent of all litigated custody trials rule in favor of the fathers," shouts the jacket (italics in the original). A national alert on father's rights groups issued by the National Organization for Women - urging members to combat proposed laws encouraging joint custody and mediation - also states that "many judges and attorneys are still biased against women. ..."

Where do these figures come from? One respectable source is the 1989 Gender Bias Study of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which reported that when fathers seek custody, they win primary or joint physical custody 70 percent of the time. In The Divorce Revolution, Lenore Weitzman reported two-thirds of fathers asking for custody in California succeeded.

Maybe, some fathers' advocates say, men only seek custody when they have a chance because there's something wrong with mom. Explaining why few non-custodial mothers pay child support, the Gender Bias Study notes "women who lose custody often [have] mental, physical, or emotional handicaps" that impair their earning ability.

That aside, the high success rate of men in custody battles is yet another contender for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame. The figures do not refer to contested cases. Weitzman acknowledged that when fathers got sole custody, it was typically by mutual agreement; of cases that went to trial, two-thirds were won by women. The work from which the Gender Bias Study gathered its numbers did not separate contested and uncontested custody bids, but showed that mothers filing for sole custody received it 75 percent of the time (the rest usually received joint legal/primary physical custody), while the "success rate" for fathers was 44 percent.

A Stanford study of more than 1,000 California couples divorced in the 1980s suggests conventional wisdom is right. If both parents requested sole custody when filing for divorce, it was awarded to mom in 45 percent and to dad in 11 percent of the cases, with joint physical custody for the rest. (When she asked for sole custody and he for joint custody, the odds were 2-1 in her favor.)

Most of the disputes were negotiated. Just five couples went to trial vying for sole custody - and one of these cases resulted in a victory for the father.

The answer is not to help fathers win more custody fights but to have fewer fights. In Michigan, the Legislature is considering a "shared parenting" or joint custody bill - the Senate substitution bill for House Bill 5636 - opposed by the state's NOW chapter. There's ample room for discussions of the best way to ensure children of divorce still have two parents. But disinformation shouldn't be part of the debate.

Cathy Young is vice-chair of the Women's Freedom Network.

Karen DeCrow

More info in reference to Karen DeCrow that comes with little tracking info. Click here for site.

Here's what former N.O.W. President Karen DeCrow said nearly a decade ago. The statistics are stale, but the insight is still valid. (Ms DeCrow joined what is now the National Congress for Men and Children in 1981):

IT'S IN MEN'S NATURE TO NURTURE, TOO. -- Karen DeCrow Women must join men in defeating the myth that only women can adequately nurture the young. As a feminist I have been strongly in support of joint, or shared custody since the early Seventies. It's clear that women will never have the opportunity for full participation in the world outside the home if they are designated as those solely responsible for the care of children --during an ongoing marriage or after divorce.

Researchers at the University of Illinois spent six years studying high school valedictorians, and found that the women were much more likely than the men to lower their career goals after college in order to pay "attention to families." Although 57.5% of the valedictorians were female, the women began to lower their career aspirations by the second year of college. Only 35 percent of these women who were first in their class plan to stayin the labor force full-time, while all of the men do.

Midway through college, the women studied also had lower levels of intellectual self-esteem. Dr. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska of Northwestern University, who reviewed the findings, writes: "It's a waste of an incredible talent pool." The waste of talent comes not from a mysterious disease which strikes female valedictorians at age 20. What strikes them down is the societal expectation -- reinforced by family, friends, the media, even their teachers-- that their main job in life is to have children, and anything else they do is secondary in importance. There's no place they can turn for a different message.

Do male valedictorians plan to be parents? Of course. But 100 percent of them plan to use their intellectual and creative abilities in their other sphere of "love" also: their work. Few women will have true equal opportunity if this role definition does not change. We must do two things to save female valedictorians.

First we must stop asking them when they are going to have children. (Surely brilliant young men are not often asked this question at cocktail parties.) And secondly, we must include fathers in matters of child rearing. No parental leave plan, no custody decision, no plan for child care facilities should be addressed to mothers alone. Providing shared responsibility for children, by law, is not only fair to men and more civilized for children, it's also to women's advantage.

Until women and men share parenting, there is little possibility they'll be able to share political, intellectual, economic and social goals. Because half of all marriages end in divorce, more than five million children now live with a divorced parent. Women receive child custody in nine out of 10 uncontested divorce cases. Support is awarded in only 59 percent of these cases. A recent study shows that two-thirds of non-custodial fathers stop making support payments after the first six months. The good news, however, is the same study shows that divorced fathers who have joint custody of their children make support payments promptly.

Under joint custody -- now legal in 38 states -- couples continue to share child-raising responsibilities after a divorce. They divorce each other, but neither of them divorces the children. Under joint custody, no parent has the humiliating experience of being a visitor in his own child's life. According to Webster's dictionary,"visitation" means an official visit, as for inspection, or special dispensation of divine favor or wrath. Why reasonable people would expect decades of financial cooperation from a parent awaiting special dispensation to take his own child to the zoo boggles the mind.

Twenty years ago, in the early days of the feminist movement, it was assumed that shared parenting must be the norm. In later years, responding to conditioning which has convinced many women their chief value is as mothers-- producers and tenders of children -- many in the feminist movement have, mysteriously to me, taken the position that it's to women's advantage to fight for sole custody of children. In this misdirected approach to family living, some women have resumed the attitude of possessiveness of children, attempting to eliminate fathers from the parenting role.

Early in the feminist movement, the anthropologists instructed that historically and traditionally women have been hobbled and enfeebled by sole responsibility for children. The attempt to fight against parenting by fathers is self-defeating for women. Winning sole custody and defeating the fathers movement's efforts to establish joint custody as the norm are Pyrrhic victories indeed. If men are talented enough to be doctors, lawyers, architects and college professors, let us give them the opportunity to be talented parents.

[Karen DeCrow was president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 - 1977. She is an attorney specializing in civil rights and resides in Syracuse, New York. This text downloadable as DECROW.INF from NCMC BBS]

Article by Cathy Young?

To see where I found this article click here. I was looking for info on Karen DeCrow, a former President of NOW, who is apparently for presumptive joint custody after divorce. The article is attributed to Cathy Young who currently writes for Reason Magazine. There was no title to the article and I will reprint it entirely below:

The often bitter debate over women, babies, and careers got a new twist last week when Michigan circuit court Judge Raymond Cashen gave custody of a 3-year-old named Maranda to her father, Steve Smith, in part because the mother, Jennifer Ireland, has placed the child in a day care center while she attends the University of Michigan. Smith also studies and works but his mother, who is not employed, is willing to help him care for the little girl at home. (Both mom and dad were 16 when Maranda was born.)

"Under the future plans of the mother, the minor child will be in essence raised and supervised a great deal of the time by strangers," Judge Cashen wrote. "Under the future plans of the father, the minor child will be raised and supervised by blood relatives."

Predictably, this has sparked an outcry from feminists who see a backlash against mothers who do not fit the 1950s mold. "A kind of Donna Reed cultural terrorism," columnist Anna Quindlen called the decision.

But others argue that 69-year-old Judge Cashen is no enemy of working women: his own wife taught at a community college most of her life and some of their children were in day care. Moreover, the decision was influenced by other factors: the judge felt that the child would generally have a more stable environment with her father. "Under the mother's plan, the child will not have a specific residence, being moved periodically between the University of Michigan and the maternal grandmother's home," he wrote. "Under the father's plan, the child will reside at the paternal grandparents' home for an indefinite period." (This reasoning should not endear him to fathers' rights groups that favor joint custody arrangements under which the child lives with each parent part of the time.)

Michigan attorney Kay Schwarzberg, who handles many divorce and custody cases, believes that concerns about the possible negative impact of day care on very young children can't be dismissed as mere backlash. But mainly, Schwarzberg is amused that there should be such outrage over Judge Cashen's reference to day care vs. home care in giving custody to the father, when for decades judges cited that issue in awarding custody to moms: "No one got excited about all the wonderful men who couldn't have custody because they were working and had to put their children in day care."

This theme is echoed by Al Lebow, founder of the Michigan- based Fathers for Equal Rights of America, one of nearly 300 fathers' rights groups across the country: "The real crux of this issue is that if the situation were reversed, there would be nobody from the media making inquiries." There are, he says, "thousands upon thousands of horror stories" of men denied not only custody but any meaningful access to their children. Though custody laws are now gender-neutral on the surface, fathers' advocates -- and most family law attorneys -- contend that a double standard lingers: a father has to show that he is a better parent (sometimes, a much better parent) to get the kids; a mother has only to show she's not a bad parent. Women are still presumed, particularly by older, traditional members of the bench such as Judge Cashen, to be naturally possessed of superior parenting skills.

Fathers' rights activists claim that just five percent of divorced dads get custody. The figure may be too low; since there is no system of tracking custody decisions, precise numbers are hard to come by. (According to the Census Bureau, 13 percent of children in single-parent families now live with their dads.) Some feminists claim that fathers win two-thirds of all contested custody cases, due to their greater resources and male bias in courts. But they apparently get that figure by counting joint- custody decisions as unilateral male victories. And some divorced fathers' advocates say that men rarely ask for custody unless they feel they have a very compelling case (and can afford huge legal fees), because they believe the deck is stack against them.

Indeed, the motives of fathers who seek sole or joint custody are often treated as suspect. Quindlen transparently insinuated, as did a New York Times editorial, that Smith had no interest in his child and started the custody fight to avoid paying Ireland $8 a week in child support -- as if anyone could think that $8 a week was worth the inconvenience of having an unwanted child in the house, not to mention the expense of raising her! (Some activists in the battered women's movement promote the even more sinister notion that most dads who fight for custody are abusers who want to use the children to continue controlling the mother.)

Those who are up in arms about Jennifer Ireland losing her child should ask themselves if they would have been as upset if Jennifer had been James. According to Lynne Hecht Schafran, an attorney with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, "Women should not be penalized for working outside the home." True. But if taking a child away from a parent is a penalty, are good fathers who lose custody of their children penalized for being male?

"We don't understand why, in this day and age, the women's movement is not interested in equality," says Lebow. Supporters of broader custody rights for fathers include former NOW president Karen DeCrow. Yet pro-maternal custody feminists argue that the child should live with the mother because she is usually the "primary caretaker." Day care clearly seems to undermine this argument: as DeCrow once quipped, if this standard were consistently applied, the children of women lawyers would be living in the Caribbean with their nannies.

Perhaps the only way to avoid biased and arbitrary decisions, and the destructive win-lose mentality of custody battles, is to institute the presumption of joint custody as the norm. No fit parent should be penalized -- whether for his gender or for her career -- by being reduced to the status of a visitor in his or her child's life.

Child Custody Case Law

This is a link to a site that lists a lot of relevant cases for fathers currently fighting custody battles, particularly if you are pro se. Please read the Editor's Note carefully...

FalseAllegations.com

Appeals Court To Hear Child Custody Constitutionality Issue

The United States Court of Appeals is set to hear a case pertaining to the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the State of New York child custody laws.

I'm not going to do a synopsis because it is a pretty info intensive article. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan 6, 2005.

MensNewsDaily

BIC- So Lacking Occasionally Even Moms Get Screwed

This is an article about the Colorado Supreme Court SEVERELY overstepping their jurisdiction using BIC (best interests of the child) as their crutch. Just another reminder of how a "judgment call" cannot translate into a constitutionally correct and enforceable law.

BTW, this article still has faults. I love how no mention is made ANYWHERE about what happened to the father of this child. Also, how impossibly ridiculous it is that these people (completely unrelated to the child) are petitioning for custody and not adoption - thereby leaving the biological mom as mom. As if this is all she is after - the freaking title.

DenverPost.com

Court lets Arvadans keep baby, for now U.S. justices refuse adoption challenge
By Howard Pankratz Denver Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 -

An Arvada couple raising a baby they hope to keep were elated Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a Colorado court decision that allows the baby to stay in Colorado - for now.

"Our clients found out about it before we did," said Dan West, a lawyer representing the couple. "They were very happy and very relieved."

The child's birth mother, an unmarried woman who lives near St. Louis, gave birth to Alex on April 18, 2003, and had agreed to the adoption.

But a few weeks after Alex came to Colorado as part of a preliminary placement, the woman, now 28 years old, changed her mind. Six months after the Colorado couple started raising Alex as their own, a Missouri judge ordered the boy returned to his biological mother.

The case participants' last names have not been made public.

After the Colorado couple went to court seeking to keep Alex, Jefferson County District Judge Stephen Munsinger said he had no jurisdiction in the case and ordered the Arvada family to return the baby they had raised since he was 2 days old. However, the child remained with the couple while Munsinger's ruling was appealed.

In April, the Colorado Supreme Court overruled Munsinger. The justices said Colorado judges can hear custody disputes when judges in other states fail to take into consideration the "best interests" of the child when determining custody, as they said the Missouri judge failed to do.
The ruling meant that Alex could stay in Colorado until Munsinger holds a trial to determine who should receive custody based on the "best interest" rule.

Eric Samler, the birth mother's lawyer, filed voluminous briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the Colorado justices ignored a federal law.

Samler said Monday the federal act requires that "one state has to give full faith and credit to the custody determination of another state."

Samler said the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to intervene was not a victory or loss for one side or the other.

"I just want to make it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court, by denying (to hear the case), did not make a decision on the merits of the case," Samler said. "All it means is that they are not going to get involved."

He said the U.S. Supreme Court usually doesn't get involved in family-court matters, but he thought they'd make an exception here because the federal law is so clear.

The birth mother visited 19- month-old Alex in August and September but not in October.
Munsinger will now decide where to place the child after a two-day hearing.

Tom Beltz, another lawyer for the Arvada couple, said his clients are not seeking legal adoption but are requesting permanent custody of Alex.

Under that arrangement, Beltz said, the Arvada couple would be Alex's "custodians" and the birth mother would remain the child's mother.

"We brought a custody action saying that Alex's best interests would be served by my clients being custodians," Beltz said. "And the birth mom can remain as his mother. So we are not asking for adoption at this point."

Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at hpankratz@denverpost.com or 303-820-1939.

Why I Hate the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers released a press release on Nov 10th saying:

1) BE IT RESOLVED that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers supports the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.
2) BE IT RESOLVED that the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers encourages the United States Congress and the legislatures of all states to achieve the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples and the extension to same-sex couples who marry and their children of all of the legal rights and obligations of spouses and children of spouses.

Hmm, they support more marriage which will inevitably mean more divorce... How mind blowing.

AND:

"We believe this is a fundamental issue of equality, that the U.S. Constitution protects one's legal right to marry as a fundamental right and that there is no reason to deny same-sex families the legal rights and obligations arising from marriage," said Richard F. Barry of San Rafael, Ca.,who served as the Academy's president the past year and who presided over the group's policy-making Board of Governors, which approved the resolution.

Of course we are not, however, in support of the Constitution protecting your rights to parent your child. That would result in LESS litigation and we simply cannot have that!

Just so you know:

The Academy was formed . . . "To encourage the study, improve the practice, elevate the standards and advance the cause of matrimonial law to the end that the welfare of the family and society be preserved."

The welfare of the FAMILY, did you get that? All I can say is - Are you kidding me!? Divorce lawyers working for the "welfare of the family"- right.

Read the entire press release here.

I have covered almost the exact same rant in this post. The Bar Associations response to the Iowa joint custody law is always a fun read!

Mother Who Tried to Bribe Judge Pays Price....

Esther Weitzner, one of the parents who paid money to a mediator in order to swing her custody case, subsequently lost custody of her three children. This was from the case in New York concerning mediator Nissim Elmann and Judge Gerald Garson. Charges were also filed against clerk Paul Sarnell and court officer Louis Salerno. Salerno and Sarnell are now on trial while Garson awaits trial.

In my opinion this is a pretty crappy article - the author pretty much provides this woman a soap box to whine about how she was wronged. From the article:

"Weitzner said she regrets breaking the law but acted out of desperation and not disrespect for the law.

"The bribe was wrong, and I would not encourage anyone to do it," she said. "Out of desperation you do stupid things.

"I feel that just because I tried to protect my children and gave money to this mediator to help me win custody, the judge is getting back at me. He belongs to the 'black robe club.' All judges are friends with each other."

"Elmann approached my father and said the only way to win the court case is by bribing," Weitzner said."

However, only briefly mentioned in the article is the fact that Mrs. Weitzner had also at time denied her ex-husband his court ordered visitation with the children. - But don't hold your breath, this author makes no comment on this.

And for a final thought - (and this is speculative) but I understand why even a good father might attempt to bribe a judge (not that I think they should, or that they should not be harshly punished if they do...). However, I have to think for a mother to consider using a bribe, she is probably a pretty lousy mother if she is really afraid she will lose the case. So all in all, it seems that the kids were meant to be with dad... Just don't expect this reporter to say anything AT ALL about that...

New York Daily News

Ohio Legal Aid

Free legal aid is available to Ohio residents in Muskingum County who meet certain income standards.

"The clinic is open to residents who are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, Mann said. The financial guidelines are based on gross household income and household size. For a four-person household resident in 2004, this would mean their total gross income must be at or below $28,275 to qualify to receive the legal advice. Mann said this amount will change every year as the federal poverty guidelines change."

"The clinics are held on the third Thursday of each month -- except for December -- at the domestic relations court, 22 N. Fifth St. The next clinic will be held at 6 p.m. Thursday. Registration and screening is from 5 to 6 p.m. "

The full article is available zanesvilletimesrecorder.com.

Alaska Self-Help Legal Stations

The Alaska Court System Family Law Self-Help Center has helped to create work stations with unlimited internet access as well as direct phone lines to the family law help line. This is a free service. The work stations are located in Kenai, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Juneau, Fairbanks and Palmer. Kenai Peninsula Online

Mississippi Legal Aid

Residents of Hinds, Rankin and Madison counties in Mississippi now have free legal aid to help with divorce and custody proceedings.

Legal Assistance Clinic: 206-9339

Article available via clarionledger.com

Tennessee Legal Aid

Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee is providing a class for parents who are representing themselves in custody or visitation issues. theleafchronicle.com

Statistics

This is from the ANCPR page and although it is under the heading Statistics supporting Equal Parenting, it is more statistics on why fathers are important. Obviously they are not one in the same but definitely related.

Retaining Custody - Step One

Okay, so you are getting a divorce. I realize this on it's own is difficult, but take a deep breath, try to shove the grief aside for now, for the sake of your children you need to be proactive and effective immediately.

First, find an attorney!! Do not share an attorney, regardless of how generous or rational your ex may seem. It protects both of you to have independent representation. The cost of hiring one on the ground level will be much cheaper than hiring them down the road and paying them to catch up on your case. Also, having an attorney up-front may prevent your ex from taking a more unscrupulous legal route. Maybe not. But if nothing else, it will send a message that you are not messing around nor will you be fooled into agreeing to any bunk arrangement.

Most importantly your attorney can advise you on the best IMMEDIATE (We have found being proactive very successful) route to take with your case.

I have to run, I'll add more to this later. Sorry, MC

So sorry about that, client emergency that required I be out of town for that past week. Let's finish this post.

As for attorney, I am going to re-print a previous post about locating an attorney: If you are looking for a lawyer referral there are far better places to start. If you know anyone in your area who has gone through a similar process ask about their attorney and their spouse's attorney. Ask as many people as you can and see if the same name pops up repeatedly. If this is not possible, the American Bar Association has an area on their website for public information. You can access lawyer locater, legal aid and research through their website. This is a free service to locate a lawyer in good standing with the bar and in your area. Link to the ABA.

In my county there is a local chapter of the ABA and they also offer a lawyer referral program. If you receive a referral through this chapter you are allowed a free 1/2 hour introductory visit. You can utilize this service for as many attorneys as you are referred. This is a good way to get a feel for an attorney before you have to start paying them. You want to hire someone you feel comfortable with in personality, methodology and knowledge of family law. Try to look in your phone book for your local chapter of the ABA or search online (I prefer Google) using your county, state and the terms bar association. Each state also has their own bar association so if you are unable to find one for your county, start with the state.

Your local chapter of the bar association should also be able to provide information on legal aid if you are unable to afford an attorney. Know, however, that the requirements of legal aid are very strict and only a limited number of people qualify for assistance. Most likely you will have to hire your own attorney. This will not be cheap. If you look for a cheap attorney you will get what you pay for. I know this process can be astronomically expensive, believe me, but you have to weigh the costs.

Many attorney's will require a retainer fee upfront and this may be several thousand dollars. Be prepared to hear this. What they are effectively telling you is that custody cases in particular have a tendency to draw out for extremely long periods of time. They need to know up front that you have the capacity to pay for the long haul if necessary. Your retainer will be placed in an account through which the attorney will effectively pay himself. You should be sent copies of the bills indicating for what and how much that attorney is billing you. After the retainer runs out, your attorney will either begin to bill you directly or ask that you provide another lump sum as a retainer. If you are billed directly, request that you be billed frequently so you can pay in smaller sums and so your bill never adds up to something you find unmanageable. If there is any money left over from your retainer after your case is finalized, your attorney should give that money back to you. In my area the average cost for an attorney is between $150 - $200 an hour.

Even with an expensive attorney there are ways to keep your costs down. To do this you will have to try and do as much of the legwork as possible for your attorney. If you can, until you go to court, utilize the attorney to do only the legal things that you are unable to do. Do your own research and have your own objectives in your mind. Obviously you need to discuss with your attorney to make sure you are on the correct path, but try to take as much initiative as possible. Don't call your attorney with every question that comes to mind, try and research the answer yourself. Ask your attorney what you should or could be doing to help your case.

Use word of mouth and the bar association for help, do not hire the first attorney you see with a commercial or a full page ad in the phone book.

Another good source in your search for an attorney: martindale.com. Look for a rating of AV.

Do, if at all possible, retain an attorney and do so as quickly as possible. A good attorney will be an invaluable resource for you.

More Evidence That Family Courts Are A Disgrace Nationwide

An audit on Hawaii Family Courts turns up some serious problems. (Are you surprised? Sadly, these are the same problems witnessed in every state when a critical eye is turned to the family court system.) Haleakala Times

History of Family Court

I am not precisely sure why and for who this article was written but it is an interesting look at the inception of the family court system and some of the most notable decisions. Familyrightsassociation.com

Las Vegas, Nevada

The Las Vegas Sun did a week long series on Family Courts. (Family Court: Out of Order, 1997). You can access the entire series here: Las Vegas Sun

North Carolina's Family Court System

This article discusses the North Carolina family court system in depth, including a fabricated example case. This is a PDF so you will need Adobe Reader. NCInfo.iog.unc.edu

Dysfunction in New York

This article is about the problems with family court in New York. It addresses potential remedies to some of the problems. recordonline.com

The Nightmare of Family Court

Article by Stephen Baskerville

Judge School?

This is an article about an introductory seminar like program offered for newly appointed judges. It is somewhat of an interesting read, not overly relevant to fathers, though it does touch on custody cases briefly and pro se litigants. What I found most telling, and personally had a problem with can be found in the following:

"His first day on the bench, he presided over 30 protection-from-abuse matters and 10 child support contempt hearings -- a day of highly charged, emotional cases.

''As I look back on it, it was a good day to start because it was like jumping into the deep end of the pool and just swimming,'' Johnson said.

He remembered what he had been taught. Keep things moving. Make decisions quickly. Keep control of the courtroom, where 60 people at various times throughout the day were looking for answers.

''Somebody asked me, 'Were you nervous?' I didn't have time to be nervous,'' Johnson said. ''I just had to get to work.''

I realize, as I am sure we all do, family courts are clogged with cases and as such potentially the natural tendency would be to "keep things moving". However, to say that the responsibility of a judge who presiding over 30+ abuse cases and 10+ child support cases is to be almost instantly decisive, is appalling to me. These are cases that directly hinge on the welfare of a child and must be handled reverently and with due attention. To handle such matters quickly is only to rely on ingrained stereotypes and (in effect) cross your fingers.

I would have thought the recent attention given to Judge Harry Rapkin by Bill O'Reilly regarding the brutal murder of Carlie Brucia would compel judges nationwide to reconsider this drive through approach to the law. Apparently not. (Get the entire story behind Judge Rapkin through Bill O'Reilly's eyes at FOXNews.com.) As an aside, Mr O'Reilly (who I believe vacillates between brilliant and utterly detestable and pugnacious) has offered for Judge Rapkin to come on his show, an offer that has been systematically declined. That did not stop Judge Rapkin for saying a few choice words about Mr O'Reilly to a Fox News staffer. I will refrain repeating what he said here as it is only from memory and I have been unable to find an exact transcript. I will say I found it to be in particularly bad taste as Judge Rapkin made his comments so personal, but even more so, I found the comments especially unbecoming of a Judge. (I must admit, however disgraceful I found Judge Rapkin, I cannot begin to explain why I continue to be surprised at how judges nationwide treat the public they are entrusted to serve, in actions as well as words.)

My other problem with this article can be found here:

"In State College, she got advice on civil disputes she eventually may have to handle. One of the issues judges discussed was whether they should question children in custody disputes.

One judge said he never asks a child who he wants to live with. Another said he usually gets around to that question because, ultimately, it is what a judge wants to know.

What Johnson found most valuable were the veteran judges' real-life stories -- ''things that only someone who has been doing it a long time can tell you,'' he said."

I know we all already know this, but this just documents the enormous amount of discretion given to family law courts. Should there not be some type of protocol in these case, to ensure that all parties (particularly the children) are given every opportunity to present a factual and accurate case. While I agree that a judge should not pull a 3 year old into chambers and ask if they prefer mommy or daddy, should there not be some definitive time when the desires of the children are requested and considered within the framework of the entire case. This statement about asking children where they prefer to live is only the tip of the iceberg, each judge can handle each divorce/custody case exactly to their own preferences. How on earth can a system that is admittedly so discretionary even be expected to be fair?

Read the entire article at mccall.com.

Denver, CO

This is an article about the state of the court system in Colorado (Hint: It's not good) DenverPost.com

Custody Case Law

This is a link to the ANCPR site about custody case law. ANCPR

Another article about the failings of the family law court system. Center for Children's Justice

Free Legal Advice

This is it for me for the day. This is a very good site for general legal questions pertaining to custody. This site, however, is not a substitute for a lawyer. Use it to get direction and then qualify the specifics of your case and state with your attorney.

It is quite lengthy and covers an array of questions. Definitely a good starting point...

Free Advice on Custody ; Free Advice on Divorce

Same site, more numbers: Fatherlessness 1 and Fatherlessness 2

Statistics!

When I began this horrendous journey, the first thing I looked for were statistics. I wanted to know how many mothers had physical custody, fathers had physical custody, visitation schedules, effects of divorce....

I think when we look for statistics we are looking for affirmation. I hardly ever search for statistics anymore as I realize how skewed and self-serving they can be to both sides of an issue.

However, I understand the need to see some hard numbers, so without further ado... Child Custody Statistics (courtesy of childrensjustice.org)

Be aware: these statistics are used to bolster a father's case. Feel free to send your feelings, comments or hate mail about these numbers and I will gladly post your thoughts as long as they are appropriate. (I reserve the right to censor any material to maintain this site's accessibility for all)

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

LII: Legal Information Institute

In an effort to get back to the point of this blog I typed child custody (I find child custody is better than custody as with the latter you often end up with stories of incarceration) into Google and decided to review the first listing. The first listing was LII. This is a non for profit legal cite run by Cornell Law School. It can be a very good resource when you are looking specifically for the legalities of a child custody case.

The site includes federal, state and even international information and cases of interest. It also contains a list of legal links that can be very useful.

I could go in depth on this web site, but the usefulness with vary by case. The NY Court of Appeals is featured, so if you are a resident of NY you might find it more beneficial.

For extensive case law relevant to your own state, I would still recommend lexisONE. However, you do have to register for lexisONE while no registration is required for LII.

LII has easy to access federal uniform laws and state acts and codes relevant to child custody. You should also be able to access the state information on your particular states web site.

So, in short, it may be a resource for you depending on how much of your own research you are handling. Link here: LII Let me know your thoughts...

San Bernardino Legal Aid

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

Separated Parenting Resources

This is another site extremely relevant to fathers. I had gone back and forth as to whether or not I would mention it, but I decided I would as it can be a resource for everyone. The difference between this site and many of the other father's rights sites is that is does not capitalize on the emotional aspect of these situations. While they do not hide the fact that the content of the site is primarily for fathers, the authors also seem to realize that mothers facing a custody case could gain assistance from the site as well. This could take the shape of either gaining a better understanding of the plight of the divorced father or as a tool to understand what tactics an ex-husband might use in a custody case. While the site clearly was created for fathers it does seem to realize that the father is not always the best choice either and should not be considered as such in a de facto manner.

Of interest, the site has an extremely comprehensive section of links that are generally quite useful and fact based. The Sparc site also includes a search function wherein you can find (usually) credible information on virtually every topic of interest relevant to divorce and custody. There was quite a bit of information that I took out of this site during my research but what comes to mind primarily are the pages about psychological testing in custody evaluations. (Caveat: The authors of this site very obviously have an issue with the types of tests administered in custody evaluations. Whether or not this is justified will have to be determined by you. In my personal experience these tests are neither as daunting or damning as they are portrayed in this site. However, they are expensive, time consuming and potentially an avenue through which a custody evaluator can render a unchecked opinion. All I am saying here is that if the mother's & father's evaluation are virtually identical, potentially (and not that this happens often or even ever) the evaluator could manipulate tests scores in order to support their justification for placement. At this point the parent's only remedy would be to get another evaluator to re-administer the test or have the results independently interpreted. What you run into here is that even with different results from another party, the original evaluator can always fall back on a statement like "in my experience..." or "my training indicates..." making it possible to poke holes in their interpretation but never able to nullify it all together.) To me, this is the scariest part of working with either a psychologist or psychiatrist. The courts give these people tremendous amounts of virtually unchecked power. To my knowledge, no state has a form or even set of issues that an evaluator must go over in their evaluation. Further, independent evaluators do not even have to consider the legal implications that very likely brought the case to the court in the first place. Independent evaluators, in my experience, are able to perform what evaluation they deem appropriate, they can give or omit tests, do home visits or not, talk to the clients 20 times each or 2 times each, basically render whatever evaluation in whatever format they deem fit and then make a like -altering recommendation. After all of this they are effectively insulated from any questions into their merits or methodology by being able to use their "professional opinion" as an escape. I believe if the courts choose to rely so heavily on independent parties there should at the very least be some type of format that must be covered, above and beyond could be at the discretion of the evaluator, but the evaluation in it's entirety should mandate some specifications as to intent and goals.

I'll get off my soap box now. You would not believe the number of horror stories I have heard about custody evaluators. There is no equivalent in the legal system to the custody evaluator in terms of unchecked power. You can appeal a judge's ruling and an appeals courts will decide your appeal in terms of the law and if they agree they will cite specifically the fault of the ruling they have overturned. While you technically can appeal the results of an independent evaluation, the curtain of professional experience shields the evaluator much more effectively. There could be 50 other evaluations with the opposite result but unless you utilize the state appeals process you will never have that evaluation thrown out. Unfortunately, the time table for a state appeal is (generally) quite lengthy, the court will not extend your case for the purposes of filing the appeal, you will usually have to travel to your state capital for the appeal process, and obviously you will be up against the peers of the evaluator in question, so only with a VERY, VERY good case do you even have a shot. And then all of this equates to more time and money spent on an already arduous process.

Anyway, try SPARC if you are looking for just about anything. If you are a mother, expect a lot of the content to be slanted towards fathers, and then take from it what you can. I think I will make today's news posts about custody evaluators, or try anyway.

As always, let me know if you think otherwise about SPARC..

Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice

This is a very interesting site though it is again particularly relevant to those living in Michigan. I am not sure why so many of these links are relevant to Michigan, I don't live there. Nonetheless, it can be a very valuable resource for anyone looking for advice.

This site is written by James Whalen, Attorney at Law, based in Flint, MI. It is extremely lengthy and comprehensive and includes 50 titled chapters specifically on divorce and child custody. The two major advantages to this site are that the author is a lawyer so it is probably the most credible advice you will find online and that it is absolutely free!

This site is not slanted to either parent and covers the most basic to the most tenuous issues in divorce and custody cases. Further, and I say this hesitantly, the author even allows visitors to email specific questions that he will respond to for free. I have to make two caveats with this information:

First, he is only licensed in Michigan. This means if you live in California he will probably not be able to give you the caliber of advice that he could give a Michigan resident, nor will he likely want to waste his time trying. Divorce and custody laws change by state. Do not expect too much from this service and do not fool yourself into thinking that the advice on this site will keep you from having to retain an attorney. This site can be a wonderful starting point and reference point during your case, it should not constitute the legal premise, plan or direction of your case. Consult your own attorney on specifics.

Secondly, please read through the site before you email a question. Look to see if your question has already been answered. It is an amazing thing that this attorney is doing for free so do not waste his time by asking something that he has already covered. Further, make sure you carefully read his requests for questions submitted over email. You can find his email address under the heading News Flashes, Updates, ..., at the bottom of that page click on the link Emailer and then carefully read the information. After all of this, if you still feel justified sending your question, go for it and good luck. The site can be accessed here: Childcustody.net