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.

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.

Clinic to offer free legal help, guidance - Washington County, Ohio

Clinic to offer free legal help, guidance

Washington County residents who have legal questions, but who cannot afford to hire an attorney, now have another resource available for legal help and guidance.

Members of the Washington County Bar Association and Southeast Ohio Legal Services are joining forces to offer a free legal advice clinic, starting this Wednesday.

A family of four can earn up to $3,900 monthly and still qualify for the free clinic, Bozian said.

Local, private attorneys will be available to discuss legal issues in confidence with residents from 6 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 320 Second St. Bozian said the goal is to hold the clinic at the same time and location on the third Wednesday of each month.

Sharon Wolboldt, paralegal with Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, said legal advice will be available on a wide array of topics, including landlord/tenant disputes, divorce, custody issues, financial matters, Social Security disability and property loss.

2 Valley events to offer free legal assistance, consultations - AZ

2 Valley events to offer free legal assistance, consultations

Excerpts:

Valley attorneys will offer free consultations and advice at two events as part of an annual effort to better connect the legal profession and the community.

Attorneys will address a range of issues, including business, immigration, bankruptcy, child custody, construction defects and landlord-tenant issues. Participants can either meet in person with an attorney or phone in questions during the Law Week 2006 events, hosted by the Maricopa County Bar Association.

The first event, the Ask-a-Lawyer Fair, is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday at Lamson College, 1126 N. Scottsdale Road, Tempe. Participants should come prepared with questions and documents to privately consult with attorneys. Typically, the meetings are limited to 15 minutes.

Attendees are encouraged to donate non-perishable food for the Desert Mission Food Bank in Phoenix, run by the John C. Lincoln Health Network.

From 6 to 9 p.m. May 2, residents can call for legal help at the Phone-A-Lawyer event at Channel 8 (KAET). The phone number, (480) 965-1998, will run across the bottom of the television screen during the event.

Spanish-speaking attorneys will be available at both events.

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

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.

Alaska Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alaska Legislature

The Alaska Constitution

Alaska Family Law Self-Help Center

Filing for Dissolution, Divorce or Custody

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 (Child Support Awards)

Alaska Child Support Calculator

Alaska Legal Services Corporation (Help resolve serious legal problems of low-income Alaskans)

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.

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.

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

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue

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

Excerpts:

Who’s William S. Hochman?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts - Michigan

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts

Excerpts:

One thousand seven hundred employees now work full-time in Friend of the Court offices as referees, counselors, clerks, and support staff in all 83 Michigan counties. In addition, many employees of the criminal justice system devote a major portion of their workday to this last vestige of debtor's prison.

So it is no surprise that there was consternation in Lansing over a federal plan that cut nearly a quarter billion dollars in Michigan subsidies for child-support enforcement. But one state legislator, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, has introduced a bill that could reduce the need for devoting so many resources to child support enforcement.

It would simply amend the Child Custody Act of 1970 to create a presumption that parents who divorce maintain joint custody of their minor children. Both would retain the legal right to authorize medical treatment, have access to school records and so forth. Both would have physical custody of their child(ren) for alternating and substantially equal periods of time.

The legislation makes provision for rebutting the presumption of joint custody -- if a parent is either "unfit, unwilling or unable," or moves residence so far away as to preclude maintaining established school schedules. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will simply give defendants back some control over their own fate.

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."

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

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.

Question of the Day

I'm going to start the "Question of the Day" (hereafter QoD) based upon the search criteria people are using to get to this site. This is not to say there will actually be one every day - but on on days I am posting where I see a common question I will post it and try to answer it.

The question today: "Does child support include income from a new spouse?"

As with many questions involving divorce, custody and support - the answer appears to be state dependent. In my state, I was under the impression that while my income could not be considered in a support order - joint investments certainly could be looked at in a big picture sense.

When my mother remarried and stopped working the court did not look at her husbands income per se but they continued to impute an income to her equivalent to what she made while working.

Personally, we have one joint checking account through which we run joint ventures, investments, etc... However, we both maintain independent accounts through which most of our expenses are paid. Our paychecks are deposited into our individual accounts - household expenses come out of our individual accounts - very little is done through the joint account.

Answers:

From Free Advice: I'm marrying a man who has children from a previous marriage. He regularly pays his child support. Since I earn more than my fiance, we want to protect my income from any future increase in support payments should the ex- seek more. What are our options?

Some states, California for example, provide that a new spouse with income, cannot be held liable for the support of a step-child except under extreme circumstances. Your State may have similar exemptions. However, for the time being, and for purposes of financial safety, set up and maintain separate savings and checking accounts. That way, your funds do not become commingled with your husband's, and a court, should the question ever arise, will always be able to calculate whose income is whose and where the funds came.

From DivorceNet: Illinois Appellate Court opens the door to include new spouse income in determining child support.

Further, the traditional view in establishing child support obligations or modifying child support obligations is that the financial resources of a new spouse are not to be considered in the calculation or determination of child support. That view took into account the lack of legal obligations a stepparent has towards the financial support of a stepchild.

However, the law on this issue has developed and evolved as stated in a recent Second District Illinois Appellate Court decision, which holds "a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support." In Re the Marriage of Drysch, 2000 WL 815278, (ILL.App2 Dist.).

From DivorceHQ: If one of us remarries, how does that affect child support?

Remarriage is frequently a concern during mediation negotiations, and your mediator will help you plan for changed circumstances. You can negotiate a parenting arrangement with an alternative plan in the event of remarriage, or you may agree to return to mediation if one of you decides to remarry. So long as your children's standard of living can be protected, the courts are likely to go along with your agreement.

If your child support agreement is based on your state's child support guidelines, child support may be subject to modification. If your agreement requires modification on a periodic basis based on the guidelines, in some states this is what might occur:

If you are receiving child support and your ex-spouse has a child in the new marriage, that event could reduce the child support payments because the court takes into account the best interests of all children.

If your ex-spouse pays you child support, and his new spouse's income is available to help pay his living expenses, you may be able to get an increase in child support on the principle that he now has a greater share of personal income available for his own use.

If you are receiving child support and you remarry, in some states your ex-spouse may be able to get a reduction in child support on the same basis- you and the children have the benefit of your new spouse's income for your personal living expenses.

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.

Commission aims to make courts more user friendly - NH

Commission aims to make courts more user friendly

Excerpts:

A commission charged with making the state court system more affordable and easier to use may recommend that the state develop classes, how-to kits, and a Web site that would help people represent themselves in court without a lawyer.

With nearly 70 percent of Granite Staters already representing themselves in divorce or child-custody cases, providing more aid to those who try to avoid hiring a lawyer promises to be one of the largest challenges for the New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts.

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.

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

Public hearings scheduled to start Monday on new child support guidelines - Georgia

macon.com

Excerpts:

Georgians will get to comment on the state's new child support guidelines at a series of public hearings across the state scheduled to start Monday evening.

The guidelines were developed because of a new state law that stipulates that judges setting child support payments must consider the incomes of both parents - not just the ones without custody.

The hearings are planned in Albany, Atlanta, Columbus and Savannah.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are we a republic or a democracy?

I thought this was a very interesting article, particularly when considering our current system of "family law."

WorldNetDaily

Are we a republic or a democracy?
By Walter Williams

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution ? two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

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."

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!

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.

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

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.

Custody Case Law

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

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