Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - MYSONSDAD

#31
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9408_a.html

 
You Carry the Cure In Your Own Heart

Emotional abuse of children can lead, in adulthood, to addiction, rage, a severely damaged sense of self and an inability to truly bond with others. But—if it happened to you—there is a way out.
by Andrew Vachss
Originally published in Parade Magazine, August 28, 1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attorney and author Andrew Vachss has devoted his life to protecting children. We asked Vachss, an expert on the subject of child abuse, to examine perhaps one of its most complex and widespread forms—emotional abuse: What it is, what it does to children, what can be done about it. Vachss' latest novel, "Down in the Zero," just published by Knopf, depicts emotional abuse at its most monstrous.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a lawyer with an unusual specialty. My clients are all children—damaged, hurting children who have been sexually assaulted, physically abused, starved, ignored, abandoned and every other lousy thing one human can do to another. People who know what I do always ask: "What is the worst case you ever handled?" When you're in a business where a baby who dies early may be the luckiest child in the family, there's no easy answer. But I have thought about it—I think about it every day. My answer is that, of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.

Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection.

Emotional abuse can be as deliberate as a gunshot: "You're fat. You're stupid. You're ugly."

Emotional abuse can be as random as the fallout from a nuclear explosion. In matrimonial battles, for example, the children all too often become the battlefield. I remember a young boy, barely into his teens, absently rubbing the fresh scars on his wrists. "It was the only way to make them all happy," he said. His mother and father were locked in a bitter divorce battle, and each was demanding total loyalty and commitment from the child.

Emotional abuse can be active. Vicious belittling: "You'll never be the success your brother was." Deliberate humiliation: "You're so stupid. I'm ashamed you're my son."

It also can be passive, the emotional equivalent of child neglect—a sin of omission, true, but one no less destructive.

And it may be a combination of the two, which increases the negative effects geometrically.

Emotional abuse can be verbal or behavioral, active or passive, frequent or occasional. Regardless, it is often as painful as physical assault. And, with rare exceptions, the pain lasts much longer. A parent's love is so important to a child that withholding it can cause a "failure to thrive" condition similar to that of children who have been denied adequate nutrition.

Even the natural solace of siblings is denied to those victims of emotional abuse who have been designated as the family's "target child." The other children are quick to imitate their parents. Instead of learning the qualities every child will need as an adult—empathy, nurturing and protectiveness—they learn the viciousness of a pecking order. And so the cycle continues.

But whether as a deliberate target or an innocent bystander, the emotionally abused child inevitably struggles to "explain" the conduct of his abusers—and ends up struggling for survival in a quicksand of self-blame.

Emotional abuse is both the most pervasive and the least understood form of child maltreatment. Its victims are often dismissed simply because their wounds are not visible. In an era in which fresh disclosures of unspeakable child abuse are everyday fare, the pain and torment of those who experience "only" emotional abuse is often trivialized. We understand and accept that victims of physical or sexual abuse need both time and specialized treatment to heal. But when it comes to emotional abuse, we are more likely to believe the victims will "just get over it" when they become adults.

That assumption is dangerously wrong. Emotional abuse scars the heart and damages the soul. Like cancer, it does its most deadly work internally. And, like cancer, it can metastasize if untreated.

When it comes to damage, there is no real difference between physical, sexual and emotional abuse. All that distinguishes one from the other is the abuser's choice of weapons. I remember a woman, a grandmother whose abusers had long since died, telling me that time had not conquered her pain. "It wasn't just the incest," she said quietly. "It was that he didn't love me. If he loved me, he couldn't have done that to me."

But emotional abuse is unique because it is designed to make the victim feel guilty. Emotional abuse is repetitive and eventually cumulative behavior—very easy to imitate—and some victims later perpetuate the cycle with their own children. Although most victims courageously reject that response, their lives often are marked by a deep, pervasive sadness, a severely damaged self-concept and an inability to truly engage and bond with others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must renounce the lie that emotional abuse is good for children because it prepares them for a hard life in a tough world. I've met some individuals who were prepared for a hard life that way—I met them while they were doing life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Emotionally abused children grow up with significantly altered perceptions so that they "see" behaviors—their own and others'—through a filter of distortion. Many emotionally abused children engage in a lifelong drive for the approval (which they translate as "love") of others. So eager are they for love—and so convinced that they don't deserve it—that they are prime candidates for abuse within intimate relationships.

The emotionally abused child can be heard inside every battered woman who insists: "It was my fault, really. I just seem to provoke him somehow."

And the almost-inevitable failure of adult relationships reinforces that sense of unworthiness, compounding the felony, reverberating throughout the victim's life.

Emotional abuse conditions the child to expect abuse in later life. Emotional abuse is a time bomb, but its effects are rarely visible, because the emotionally abused tend to implode, turning the anger against themselves. And when someone is outwardly successful in most areas of life, who looks within to see the hidden wounds?

Members of a therapy group may range widely in age, social class, ethnicity and occupation, but all display some form of self-destructive conduct: obesity, drug addiction, anorexia, bulimia, domestic violence, child abuse, attempted suicide, self-mutilation, depression and fits of rage. What brought them into treatment was their symptoms. But until they address the one thing that they have in common—a childhood of emotional abuse—true recovery is impossible.

One of the goals of any child-protective effort is to "break the cycle" of abuse. We should not delude ourselves that we are winning this battle simply because so few victims of emotional abuse become abusers themselves. Some emotionally abused children are programmed to fail so effectively that a part of their own personality "self-parents" by belittling and humiliating themselves.

The pain does not stop with adulthood. Indeed, for some, it worsens. I remember a young woman, an accomplished professional, charming and friendly, well-liked by all who knew her. She told me she would never have children. "I'd always be afraid I would act like them," she said.

Unlike other forms of child abuse, emotional abuse is rarely denied by those who practice it. In fact, many actively defend their psychological brutality, asserting that a childhood of emotional abuse helped their children to "toughen up." It is not enough for us to renounce the perverted notion that beating children produces good citizens—we must also renounce the lie that emotional abuse is good for children because it prepares them for a hard life in a tough world. I've met some individuals who were prepared for a hard life that way—I met them while they were doing life.

The primary weapons of emotional abusers is the deliberate infliction of guilt. They use guilt the same way a loan shark uses money: They don't want the "debt" paid off, because they live quite happily on the "interest."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When your self-concept has been shredded, when you have been deeply injured and made to feel the injury was all your fault, when you look for approval to those who can not or will not provide it—you play the role assigned to you by your abusers. It's time to stop playing that role.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Because emotional abuse comes in so many forms (and so many disguises), recognition is the key to effective response. For example, when allegations of child sexual abuse surface, it is a particularly hideous form of emotional abuse to pressure the victim to recant, saying he or she is "hurting the family" by telling the truth. And precisely the same holds true when a child is pressured to sustain a lie by a "loving" parent.

Emotional abuse requires no physical conduct whatsoever. In one extraordinary case, a jury in Florida recognized the lethal potential of emotional abuse by finding a mother guilty of child abuse in connection with the suicide of her 17-year-old daughter, whom she had forced to work as a nude dancer (and had lived off her earnings).

Another rarely understood form of emotional abuse makes victims responsible for their own abuse by demanding that they "understand" the perpetrator. Telling a 12-year-old girl that she was an "enabler" of her own incest is emotional abuse at its most repulsive.

A particularly pernicious myth is that "healing requires forgiveness" of the abuser. For the victim of emotional abuse, the most viable form of help is self-help—and a victim handicapped by the need to "forgive" the abuser is a handicapped helper indeed. The most damaging mistake an emotional-abuse victim can make is to invest in the "rehabilitation" of the abuser. Too often this becomes still another wish that didn't come true—and emotionally abused children will conclude that they deserve no better result.

The costs of emotional abuse cannot be measured by visible scars, but each victim loses some percentage of capacity. And that capacity remains lost so long as the victim is stuck in the cycle of "understanding" and "forgiveness." The abuser has no "right" to forgiveness—such blessings can only be earned. And although the damage was done with words, true forgiveness can only be earned with deeds.

For those with an idealized notion of "family," the task of refusing to accept the blame for their own victimization is even more difficult. For such searchers, the key to freedom is always truth—the real truth, not the distorted, self-serving version served by the abuser.

Emotional abuse threatens to become a national illness. The popularity of nasty, mean-spirited, personal-attack cruelty that passes for "entertainment" is but one example. If society is in the midst of moral and spiritual erosion, a "family" bedrocked on the emotional abuse of its children will not hold the line. And the tide shows no immediate signs of turning.

Effective treatment of emotional abusers depends on the motivation for the original conduct, insight into the roots of such conduct and the genuine desire to alter that conduct. For some abusers, seeing what they are doing to their child—or, better yet, feeling what they forced their child to feel—is enough to make them halt. Other abusers need help with strategies to deal with their own stress so that it doesn't overload onto their children.

But for some emotional abusers, rehabilitation is not possible. For such people, manipulation is a way of life. They coldly and deliberately set up a "family" system in which the child can never manage to "earn" the parent's love. In such situations, any emphasis on "healing the whole family" is doomed to failure.

If you are a victim of emotional abuse, there can be no self-help until you learn to self-reference. That means developing your own standards, deciding for yourself what "goodness" really is. Adopting the abuser's calculated labels—"You're crazy. You're ungrateful. It didn't happen the way you say"—only continues the cycle.

Adult survivors of emotional child abuse have only two life-choices: learn to self-reference or remain a victim. When your self-concept has been shredded, when you have been deeply injured and made to feel the injury was all your fault, when you look for approval to those who can not or will not provide it—you play the role assigned to you by your abusers.

It's time to stop playing that role, time to write your own script. Victims of emotional abuse carry the cure in their own hearts and souls. Salvation means learning self-respect, earning the respect of others and making that respect the absolutely irreducible minimum requirement for all intimate relationships. For the emotionally abused child, healing does come down to "forgiveness"—forgiveness of yourself.

How you forgive yourself is as individual as you are. But knowing you deserve to be loved and respected and empowering yourself with a commitment to try is more than half the battle. Much more.

And it is never too soon—or too late—to start.

 

"Children learn what they live"
#32

http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm

http://www.usalone.com/bankruptcy.htm
#33
Psycho Feds Target Children - By Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Reply
Recommend Message 1 in Discussion From: Phoenix
Psycho Feds Target Children
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD

    Every parent in America should be made aware of a presidential
initiative called the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health." This
commission issued a report last year calling for the mandatory mental
health
screening of American schoolchildren, meaning millions of kids will
be
forced to undergo psychiatric screening whether their parents consent
or not. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what
medical treatment is appropriate for their children.

   Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or
decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it
has no
legitimate authority to interfere in your family's intimate health
matters. Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, and the
drugs
regularly prescribed produce serious side effects, especially in
children's developing brains. The bottom line is that mental health
issues are a
matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government.

   Unfortunately, however, the mental health screening initiative
received funding from House and Senate appropriators in the 2005
federal
budget. This funding allows states to create or expand mental health
screening programs with your tax dollars. More importantly, the
commission
recommends a broader federal program in the near future.

   Last fall I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for
the
proposal in a year-end spending bill. Although the amendment failed,
the response to my office was overwhelming and highly supportive. The
notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of
youngsters
to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord
with
American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more
parental
control to government.

   Accordingly, the first bill I introduced this year forbids federal
funds from being used for any mental-health screening of students
without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their
parents.
The bill is known as "The Parental Consent Act of 2005," or HR 181.
This
legislation strikes a vital blow for parents who oppose government
interference with their parental authority, and strengthens the
fundamental
right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education
of
their children.

   It is important to understand that powerful interests, namely
federal bureaucrats and pharmaceutical lobbies, are behind the push
for
mental health screening in schools. There is no end to the
bureaucratic
appetite to run our lives, and the pharmaceutical industry is eager
to sell
psychotropic drugs to millions of new customers in American schools.
Only tremendous public opposition will suffice to overcome the
lobbying
and bureaucratic power behind the president's New Freedom Commission.

   Your help is needed. Please tell everyone you know about HR 181,
and
ask them to call their representatives and senators in Washington to
voice strong opposition to forced mental health screening. Demand
that
the Department of Health and Human Services receive no tax dollars in
this year's appropriation bill for screening programs, and that
states
receive no federal dollars for programs of their own. Refer to my
congressional website for articles from September 2004 about mental
health
screening, and sobering statistics about anti-depressant drugs and
kids in
the text of HR 181. Most of all, talk with your friends, family, and
colleagues about the underlying issue of whether the state owns your
kids. Remind them that freedom can be maintained only when state
power is
limited, especially when it comes to fundamental freedoms over our
bodies and minds.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from  Texas.







"Children learn what they live"
#34
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6112-2005Mar4.html

washingtonpost.com
Child Agency Botched Cases, D.C. Report Says

By Theola S. Labbe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page B01


Children in the protective care and custody of the District's child welfare agency might be at risk of further harm because the agency is mishandling suspected cases of child maltreatment, according to a report released yesterday by the city's Office of the Inspector General.

Investigators found that the Child and Family Services Agency did not have complete reports on children who ran away from residential facilities, were abused or neglected, or faced other suspected maltreatment. In at least six cases, a child died and the agency lacked a full accounting of the cause of death.

William J. DiVello, assistant inspector general for audits, told the D.C. Council's Committee on Human Services that the child protection agency needed to better manage allegations of maltreatment to ensure that children remain healthy and safe.

"If the incidents are not being reported in a timely manner, they can't be investigated properly, and it takes longer for the corrective actions to get underway," DiVello said.

Child and Family Services, which has about 3,000 children in its custody and monitors an additional 2,000 children, began to operate independently in June 2001 after six years under a court-appointed receiver. The inspector general's report examined agency practices over a two-year period, from 2001 to 2003, by reviewing 202 internal agency documents on suspected incidents of maltreatment. The incidents included deaths, suicide attempts, personal injury, accidents and absconding cases.

Investigators conducted a detailed review of 27 incidents and found that none of the reports was signed or dated, making it difficult to pinpoint when the alleged maltreatment occurred. In addition, foster-care providers in residential facilities did not immediately report incidents to the city agency; in one case, the delay was 42 days, the report said.

There were six deaths among the 27 cases, five of which occurred while children were in the agency's custody, DiVello said. Three of the children were younger than a year old, the report stated.

DiVello noted that the child protective agency made substantial progress in other areas, including lowering the caseload for social workers, but that it needs to take additional steps to deal with allegations of mistreatment of children in the agency's care or custody.

The inspector general's report included six recommendations, including that the agency complete, within 30 days, all investigations of alleged maltreatment reported to the agency's hotline. In addition, the report recommended that the agency reinforce existing policies requiring foster-care providers to report incidents within 24 hours.

Under questioning from the committee chairman, Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), agency director Brenda Donald Walker said she has accepted five recommendations. She said the agency has measures in place to address the sixth recommendation, which called for maintaining all forms related to allegations of maltreatment in one location. Donald Walker said that the agency will seek to have fines imposed against foster-care facilities that do not comply with the reporting requirements.

"The pace of change in this agency is so rapid that what was an issue even a few weeks ago, we're working on it," said Donald Walker, who was appointed interim director in April and confirmed in December. She noted that in 2002, the agency created an Institutional Review Unit that looks at the care of foster children in group homes and an office devoted to licensing and monitoring.

The inspector general's report is the latest to raise questions about the agency's progress in the years immediately after its return to city control. Among the findings last year by court monitor Judith Meltzer, deputy director of the District-based Center for the Study of Social Policy, were that problems with the child-abuse hotline and agency intake resulted in a backlog of child abuse and neglect investigations.


"Children learn what they live"
#35
General Issues / URGENT, IN NEED OF COMPUTER GURU
Mar 05, 2005, 01:21:48 PM
I am preparing more on my trial.

Found some good stuff from my Official State site. It is in PDF.
I have Acrobat Reader 6. When I print this file out, the letters are all scrambled and slightly overlapping.

It opens up fine, in English. I don't get it...

I went back in to make sure I clicked on English, I did. So why is it printing out scrambled?
#36
General Issues / SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE
Dec 20, 2004, 11:17:42 AM
PLEASE MAKE VIGEROUS USE OF THIS ACCESS AND TELL THEM HOW YOU FEEL
.........AND SPREAD THE WORD E-MAIL THIS EVERYWHERE.............


Subject: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTE NOW WANTS COMMENTS

Soon Congress will start the Christmas recess to return in late
January
2005. When Congress returns for the next term the first few weeks
will
be spent
organizing the areas of responsibility which will get attention. In
preparation for the next term the House Judiciary Committee has a
web
address for
citizens to send comments to. The address for comments is the
highlighted.
_http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx_
(http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx)


There is some activity going on that I will not comment on at this
time
and
some that I will. I am not sure how many know about a committee that

Justice
Rhenquist put Justice Breyer in charge of and is now reviewing some
600
judicial misconduct complaints filed between 2001 and 2003. What is
notable is
that all circuits were told to submit misconduct complaints that met
certain
criteria--some circuits conditioned their permission to review the
complaintrs
on a requirement that the names of the principals be masked. In
other
words the complained of judges want to keep their identity
confidential.

Please go to the Judiciary Committee website and leave your comments,

include your thoughts that judges should not be allowed to "self
police" and
misconduct complaints should not be dismissed with canned language.
For those
that are interested the rules that now govern judicial misconduct
allegations
can be found at

_
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp10
7&r_n=hr685.107&sel=TOC_296982_

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp1
07&r_n=hr685.107&sel=TOC_296982)


PLEASE SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE


"Children learn what they live"
#37
General Issues / Passing this along....
Dec 18, 2004, 06:36:00 PM
Subject: HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTE NOW WANTS COMMENTS

Soon Congress will start the Christmas recess to return in late
January
2005. When Congress returns for the next term the first few weeks
will
be spent
organizing the areas of responsibility which will get attention. In
preparation for the next term the House Judiciary Committee has a
web
address for
citizens to send comments to. The address for comments is the
highlighted.
_http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx_
(http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx)


There is some activity going on that I will not comment on at this
time
and
some that I will. I am not sure how many know about a committee that

Justice
Rhenquist put Justice Breyer in charge of and is now reviewing some
600
judicial misconduct complaints filed between 2001 and 2003. What is
notable is
that all circuits were told to submit misconduct complaints that met
certain
criteria--some circuits conditioned their permission to review the
complaintrs
on a requirement that the names of the principals be masked. In
other
words the complained of judges want to keep their identity
confidential.

Please go to the Judiciary Committee website and leave your comments,

include your thoughts that judges should not be allowed to "self
police" and
misconduct complaints should not be dismissed with canned language.
For those
that are interested the rules that now govern judicial misconduct
allegations
can be found at

_
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp10
7&r_n=hr685.107&sel=TOC_296982_

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp1
07&r_n=hr685.107&sel=TOC_296982)


PLEASE SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE




#38
General Issues / HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!!
Nov 24, 2004, 09:09:54 PM
Hope all of us here have some time with our kids this weekend. Even thru a simple phone call.

Holiday Blessings to all and may God Bless the Children.  

"Children learn what they live"
#39
ACTION ALERT

November 8, 2004


High-priced lobbyists in Washington are tough to beat; especially the ones
who represent the pharmaceutical industry.  But we can't let them win this
time.

On September 7th, we told you about the New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health's plan (a presidential commission) to subject every child in America
to mandatory mental-health screening; a plan that will result in the forced
drugging of children.  Two days later, Congressman Ron Paul tried to stop
this insidious plan by offering an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and
Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005.  The amendment received 95 "yes"
votes, but it failed to pass.

However, Congressman Paul and several of his colleagues are not giving up.
Neither are we.  They have drafted a letter to Congressman Ralph Regula,
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education Appropriations, asking for his help.  The letter will be sent to
Mr. Regula this Friday.  As of today, 11 House members have signed the
letter which is a very good start.  But the high-priced lobbyists
representing the drug companies are already working to oppose our effort, so
we need to get additional support for our side.

Read the letter and then urge your U.S. representative to sign it.  If you
think mandatory mental-health screening can't happen in the good ol' USofA,
think again.  In 1995, while George W. Bush was governor, the state of Texas
launched the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.  The state of Illinois
launched a similar program in 2003.  Backers of those two state programs now
want to go nationwide!  We must stop them!!

To read the letter and send your message, go to
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/regula.htm

Background
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update09.07.04.htm

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org




"Children learn what they live"
#40
General Issues / Associated Press Release
Nov 05, 2004, 10:36:16 AM
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA -- The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush today against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

(As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court (in the new Congress). He would have wide latitude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants.

Legal scholar Dennis Hutchinson said Specter's message to the White House appears to be "a way of asserting his authority" as he prepares to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is term-limited from keeping the post next year.

"A self-proclaimed moderate, he helped kill President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter.
TAKE ACTION

If you have a Republican Senator (you may even have two), call them today and tell them not to vote for Senator Specter for Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Chairman is chosen by secret ballot by the Republican Caucus which includes all Republican Senators.

Tell your Republican Senator(s) that if Sen. Specter is allowed to serve as Chairman, it will be considered a slap in the face of all the Values Voters who voted for Pres. Bush. And it will be considered a betrayal of trust, in light of the fact that Bush ran opposing Senators blocking his appointments—such as Sen. Specter has promised to do.

You can reach your Republican Senator by calling the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask for your Senator by name, or give the operator your zip code. It does no good to call a Democrat senator.



#41
I have to give this some credit in regard to the media attention they draw...


**** Please forward on to other lists and translate into appropriate
languages. It is time for parents around the world to UNITE and FIGHT for
our childrens future.

Action for DECEMBER 17th.
===================

Fathers 4 Justice will hold their Christmas Protest Action in London on
Saturday December 18th. in typical F4J style ;o)

Whether you support Fathers 4 Justice or not; whether you agree or disagree
with our methods, we have achieved world-wide media coverage with our
actions. Please capitalise on what we have achieved in raising our issue in
the public arena and get involved with the following action on Friday
December 17th., either in support of Fathers 4 Justice, in support of your
own group, as individuals but more importantly - in support of your children
and their future!

Earlier this year a member of Fathers 4 Justice placed his sons toys on the
steps of the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Fathers 4 Justice -
Netherlands followed with a similar action outside the child welfare office.
( Images and video can be seen via:
 )

Action
=====

i) Please buy a toy or donate one of your childrens toys, wrap it up as a
Christmas present and mark on the present whether it is for a boy or a girl.

iii) Notify the local media to cover the event and also notify a childrens
charity to collect the presents after the protest as a donation to them.
Ask that they inform the media about the donation.

iii) On Friday December 17th. we are asking that parents around the world
dress as Santa Claus ( Father Christmas ), carry purple flags and congregate
in front of your local family court or child welfare office steps.

( Previous F4J Christmas demo can be seen via: )


iv) Sing Christmas Carols outside the court / office as this will draw the
publics attention to you.

v) When you have a suitable audience start placing the presents on the steps
of the family court. Nominate one member to inform the public that you can't
give the present to your own child because of these courts etc..

Inform the public why you are there and carrying out the action - be polite
and avoid being angry. The public will avoid people who appear angry - they
will approach you if you appear to be having a good time and enjoying
yourself.

v)  Continue singing more Christmas Carols including the Fathers 4 Justice
one pasted below!

When you have finished the protest I would suggest that members debrief in a
local cafe, bar or somewhere to have a meal and relax and discuss further
actions for 2005.

Our children have suffered enough! It is time to send the message out that
as decent parents, we will no longer tolerate the child abuse handed out to
children by family courts. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Please notify me of the following in order that we can broadcast a list of
contacts and locations.  This will help people to recruit volunteers locally
and to insert details into their press releases.

i) Contact person ( e-mail address )
ii) Location or area of protest

Several groups and individuals have pledged to take part in Australia, New
Zealand and France. We hope to get a protest in every state in America.;
every province in Canada and countries in South America where we have an
increasing membership.

Fathers 4 Justice Christmas Carol:


The 12 Days of Xmas:


On the first day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
A summons to stop my custody.


On the second day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody


On the third day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody


On the fourth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody


On the fifth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody


On the sixth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody


On the seventh day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.

On the eight day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Eight separate motions
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.


On the ninth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Nine Dates for hearings
Eight separate motions
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.

On the tenth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Ten CAFCASS people
Nine Dates for hearings
Eight separate motions
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.


On the eleventh day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Eleven Allegations
Ten CAFCASS people
Nine Dates for hearings
Eight separate motions
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.


On the twelfth day of Christmas
My ex love sent to me
Twelve Penal notices
Eleven Allegations
Ten CAFCASS people
Nine Dates for hearings
Eight separate motions
Seven injunction papers
Six witness statements
Five policemenŠŠŠŠŠ
Four solicitors letters
Three harassment charges
Two restraining orders
And a summons to stop my custody.

... and enjoy yourselves, knowing that you are doing something for your
children and their future!

regards

Dave Ellison
=========


--
Dave Ellison
Fathers 4 Justice International Co-ordinator.
0796.333.5938
http://www.amberell.com/campaign.html
Homepage:             http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mad-dogs/
--
Fathers for Justice-UK: http://www.fathers-4-justice.org
Canada: http://www.fathers-4-justice.ca
Australia: http://www.fathers-4-justice-aus.org
Nederlands: http://www.f4j.nl/




"Children learn what they live"
#42
General Issues / Child Safety packet
Oct 30, 2004, 07:31:56 PM
http://childsafenetwork.org/index.php
#43
It has just been confirmed that Michael Badnarik will be on MSNBC tomorrow, October 28 between 2:00-2:30pm . Details are still being confirmed. Tune in to your local MSNBC station to catch Michael Badnarik live.

Network: MSNBC
Date: Thursday, Oct. 28
Time: 2:00pm ET (3-4 minute live interview.)
Host: Lisa Daniels or Natalie Morales

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the following announcement is provided from the Robert Scott Bell Show:

Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik on the Robert Scott Bell Show on Talk Radio Network from 3 PM to 4 PM EST, Sunday, October 31, 2004. Click http://rsbell.com/radio/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=96  for the latest affiliate list.
 
Healthy Politics -- Live from the campaign trail, Constitutional scholar and presidential candidate Michael Badnarik makes one last stop on the Robert Scott Bell Show before the election. This is your chance to make your voice heard and ask a real American patriot about the genuine issues of freedom on the line this election. The only "spin" here is from the vortex of freedom that rocks the heartland on the united States of Health Talk Radio.  Solutions that you will not hear anywhere else on radio... What else is in the news? Hey, this IS the news! Your calls this hour at 1-800-449-8255.  (SHOW TOPICS SUBJECT TO CHANGE THIS WEEK DEPENDING UPON BREAKING HEALTH NEWS AND THE WHIMS OF THE HOST)

Michael Badnarik will be live in studio on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN this Friday, October 29 @ 9:00-10:00am . Your phone calls are welcome on the show. Find out more information at the C-SPAN website.

Call-In Numbers
Support Pres. Bush:
(202) 628-0205
Support Sen. Kerry:
(202) 737-0002
Support Others:
(202) 628-0184
Email:
[email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This just confirmed: Michael Badnarik will be on "Mancow" once again, this time for a full hour! Michael Badnarik will be in studio tomorrow, October 28 @ 7:00-8:00am . Check out Mancow's website (http://www.mancow.com/) and on the right column near the bottom there is a poll that might be of interest to you. You can also tune in live via the website.

"Kerry or Bush? Do you really think either will change your life. None of these people are looking out for the regular guy. God Bless you all" - Mancow

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network: Genesis Communications Network

Show: Free Talk Live

Location: 3 Terrestrial Stations, 4 Satellite Channels, 7 Internet Feeds
(details at freetalklive.com)

Time: 8:00-9:00pm

Date: 10/30/04

Length: 60 minutes

Host: Ian, Mike, and Manwich

WWW: http://freetalklive.com




"Children learn what they live"
#44
Visitation Issues / Illinois, Check this out!
Jun 28, 2005, 10:47:40 AM
Task Force on Visitation, passed May 30, 2005

HR 0170

http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0170&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HR&LegID=20644&SessionID=50&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=94

 
  HR0170  LRB094 11432 LCB 42346 r
 
 
1  HOUSE RESOLUTION

 
2      WHEREAS, The State of Illinois wishes to encourage the  
3  participation of both parents in a child's life; and
 
4      WHEREAS, There are many cases in Illinois in which parents  
5  have been denied visitation that has been ordered by the court;  
6  and
 
7      WHEREAS, The withholding of court-ordered visitation from  
8  a parent can have negative effects on both the child and the  
9  parent; therefore, be it
 
10      RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE  
11  NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that  
12  there is hereby created a Visitation Task Force that shall  
13  study the frequency of and problems caused by the denial of  
14  court-ordered visitation to a parent and the possible solutions  
15  to this problem; and be it further
 
16      RESOLVED, That the Task Force shall consist of 6 members,  
17  with 3 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of  
18  Representatives and 3 members appointed by the Minority Leader  
19  of the House of Representatives; and be it further
 


"Children learn what they live"
#45
VISITATION
http://www.petitiononline.com/676767/petition.html

MOVE AWAYS
http://www.petitiononline.com/MA020805/
#46
Visitation Issues / FOR WHIPPERTIZZY
Jan 16, 2005, 09:16:16 AM
Some time back, you were looking for information for Grandparents rights in Illinois.

Found this and thought it may be of help...

Status Re 2004 Illinois Family Law Legislation / Rules

By: Gunnar J. Gitlin
The Gitlin Law Firm, Woodstock, Illinois    © 2004
//www.gitlinlawfirm.com

Last Updated: December 27, 2004

A summary of new legislation, proposed or enacted Supreme Court Rules and bills that have passed follows:

If you know of a new piece of Illinois family law legislation which should be known by Illinois divorce lawyers, please let me know. Key new law is the grandparent visitation legislation, below.  For the Illinois Family Support Enforcement's summary of currently proposed legislation, click here.  A summary of key bills now pending in or passed by the legislature is:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004: Grandparent Visitation:
 
  Status: Public Act 93-911.


Synopsis as Reconciled:  The legislation allows a "grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling" to file a petition for visitation if there is an unreasonable denial of visitation and one of certain stated conditions exist.  The statute states it provides a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent's actions and decisions are not harmful to the child.  

(750 ILCS 5/607) Visitation.

(a-5)
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (a-5), any grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling may file petition for visitation rights to a minor child if there is an unreasonable denial of visitation [by a parent] and at least one of the following conditions exists:

(A) one parent of the child is incompetent as a matter of law or deceased or has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment for more than 1 year;
(B) the child's mother and father are divorced or have been legally separated from each other during the 3 month period prior to the filing of the petition and at least one parent does not object to the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling having visitation with the child. The visitation of the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling must not diminish the visitation of the parent who is not related to the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling seeking visitation;
[Senate Amendment 1: Nothing in subsection (a-5) of this Section shall apply to a child in whose interests a petition under Section 2-13 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 is pending.]
(C) the court has terminated a parent-child relationship and the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling is the parent of the person whose parental rights have been terminated, except in cases of adoption. The visitation must not be used to allow the parent who lost parental rights to unlawfully visit with the child;
(D) the child resided in the home of the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling for a period of 6 consecutive months or more and the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling was the primary caregiver for the child within the 2 years prior to the filing of the petition;
(E) the child is illegitimate, the parents are not living together, and the petitioner is a maternal grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling of the illegitimate child; or
(F) the child is illegitimate, the parents are not living together, the petitioner is a paternal grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling, and the paternity has been established by a court of competent jurisdiction.


(2) The grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling of a parent whose parental rights have been terminated through an adoption proceeding may not petition for visitation rights.

(3) In making a determination under this subsection (a-5), there is a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent's actions and decisions regarding grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling visitation are not harmful to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. The burden is on the party filing a petition under this Section to prove that the parent's actions and decisions regarding visitation times are harmful to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health.

(4) In determining whether to grant visitation, the court shall consider the following:

(A) the preference of the child if the child is determined to be of sufficient maturity to express a preference;
(B) the mental and physical health of the child;
(C) the mental and physical health of the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling;
(D) the length and quality of the prior relationship between the child and the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling;
(E) the good faith of the party in filing the petition;
(F) the good faith of the person denying visitation;
(G) the quantity of the visitation time requested and the potential adverse impact that visitation would have on the child's customary activities;
(H) whether the child resided with the petitioner for at least 6 consecutive months with or without the current custodian present;
(I) whether the petitioner had frequent or regular contact with the child for at least 12 consecutive months; and
(J) any other fact that establishes that the loss of the relationship between the petitioner and the child is likely to harm the child's mental, physical, or emotional health.

(5) The court may order visitation rights for the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling that include reasonable access without requiring overnight or possessory visitation.

(a-7)
(1) Unless by stipulation of the parties, no motion to modify a grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling visitation order may be made earlier than 2 years after the date the order was filed, unless the court permits it to be made on the basis of affidavits that there is reason to believe the child's present environment may endanger seriously the child's mental, physical, or emotional health.

(2) The court shall not modify a prior grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling visitation order unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior visitation order or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior visitation, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his or her custodian, and that the modification is necessary to protect the mental, physical, or emotional health of the child. The court shall state in its decision specific findings of fact in support of its modification or termination of the grandparent, great-grandparent, or sibling visitation.

(3) Attorney fees and costs shall be assessed against a party seeking modification of the visitation order if the court finds that the modification action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.

(4) Notice under this subsection (a-7) shall be given as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of Section 601



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004:   Grandparent Custody - HB 1020:
 
  Status: Public Act 93-1026.


Synopsis:  This legislation amends Section 601 of the IMDMA which provides for standing for petitions for custody.  It allows a grandparent to seek custody of a grandchild when one parent, who must have been the child or the stepchild of the grandparent, is decreased.  Effective January 1, 2005, Section (4) provides:

(4) When one of the parents is deceased, by a grandparent who is a parent or stepparent of a deceased parent, by filing a petition, if one or more of the following existed at the time of the parent's death:


(A) the surviving parent had been absent from the marital abode for more than one month without the deceased spouse knowing his or her whereabouts;
(B) the surviving parent was in State or federal custody; or
(C) the surviving parent had: (i) received supervision for or been convicted of any violation of Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961 directed towards the deceased parent or the child; or (ii) received supervision or been convicted of violating an order of protection entered under Section 217, 218, or 219 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 for the protection of the deceased parent or the child.



 

Agencies Ability to Access Tax Returns -- Public Act 93-835  
  Status: Was HB 4076.  July 29, 2004.

Amends 35 ILCS 5/917 of the Illinois Income Tax Act providing that public agencies enrolled in support enforcement (the IDPA, Attorney General and state's attorney) may obtain information from tax returns that would otherwise be confidential to assist with collection efforts.



 

Gestational Surrogacy Act -- HB 4962 -- Public Act 93-921
  Status: Public Act.  August 12, 4004.  

750 ILCS 45/2.5.  Creates the Gestational Surrogacy Act. Provides guidelines for creating surrogacy contracts. Establishes the eligibility requirements for becoming a surrogate. Amends the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984. Changes the Section concerning the establishment of the parent and child relationship to include the provisions outlined in the Gestational Surrogacy Act.  House Amendment 1:  Deletes the definition of "informed consent." Removes references to informed consent. Provides, in the requirements of the surrogacy contract, that each of the gestational surrogate and the intended parent or parents shall have signed a written acknowledgement that he or she received information about the legal, financial, and contractual rights, expectations, penalties, and obligations of the surrogacy agreement. See Illinois Bar Journal June 2004 for a further discussion.



 

Expedited Appeals in Custody Cases -- Supreme Court Rule 306A
  Status: New Supreme Court Rule -- effective July 1, 2004.  

It provides:  " The expedited procedures in this rule shall apply in the following child custody cases: (1) initial final child custody orders, (2) orders modifying child custody where a change of custody has been granted, (3) final orders of adoption and (4) final orders terminating parental rights. If the appeal is taken from a judgment or order affecting other matters, such as support, property issues or decisions affecting the rights of persons other than the child, the reviewing court may handle all pending issues using the expedited procedures in this rule, unless doing so will delay decision on the child custody appeal. In any other child custody cases in which the best interests of the child is involved including orders of visitation, guardianship standing to pursue custody and interim orders of custody, a party may file a petition in accordance with the rules seeking leave to appeal. Upon granting of the petition by the appellate court, all said proceedings shall be subject to procedures set forth in this rule.  The rule eliminates visitation and adds adoption as cases subject to expedited appeals.  A new provision will also state, "Requests for continuance are disfavored and shall be granted only for compelling circumstances. The appellate court may require personal appearance by the attorney or party requesting the continuance as provided by local rule." A good discussion of this Rule is in the Illinois Bar Journal, May 2004.



 

Child Support -- Extension of Withholding Orders Due to Unpaid Arrearage After Majority Age Reached -- SB 2690
  Status: August 6, 2004.   Governor's Amendatory Veto ( Recommends that the bill's effective date be changed from July 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005.)


Amends the IDPA, IDMDA, NSPA, IWSA and IPA of 1984.  Provides that if there is an unpaid arrearage or delinquency equal to at least one month's support obligation on the termination date stated in the order for support or, if there is no termination date stated in the order, on the date the child attains the age of majority or is otherwise emancipated, then the periodic amount required to be paid for current support of that child immediately prior to that date shall automatically continue to be an obligation, not as current support but as periodic payment toward satisfaction of the unpaid arrearage or delinquency. Provides that the periodic payment shall be in addition to any periodic payment previously required for satisfaction of the arrearage or delinquency. Provides that each order for support entered or modified on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act must contain a statement notifying the parties of these requirements. Makes other changes. Effective without amendatory veto:  July 1, 2004.



 

Child Support -- Obligors Without Withholding Orders and Debit Authorization -- HB 4310
  Status: Public Act 93-736. July 14, 2004.

As amended, amends the Illinois Banking Act, the Illinois Savings and Loan Act of 1985, the Savings Bank Act, the Illinois Credit Union Act, the Foreign Banking Office Act, the Illinois Public Aid Code. Directs the Department of Public Aid to adopt a child support enforcement debit authorization form and notify banks and other financial institutions that it has done so. Provides that banks and other financial institutions must implement use of the child support enforcement debit authorization form within 90 days after the Department of Public Aid gives notice that it has adopted the form.  Provides that if an obligor does not have an employer and has been ordered to make periodic payments of child support to the State Disbursement Unit, the obligor may (changed from "must") authorize a bank or other financial institution at which the obligor maintains an account to debit his or her account periodically in an amount equal to the amount of child support required to be paid, using the form adopted by the Department of Public Aid. Amendment changes and adds definitions of terms used in connection with child support enforcement debit authorization; provides that the signing and issuance of a child support enforcement debit authorization form does not relieve an obligor from responsibility for compliance with any other requirement under an order for support; and sets forth circumstances under which a financial institution is obligated to debit the account of an obligor pursuant to a child support enforcement debit authorization form. Effective immediately.



 

New Judicial Districts -- Public Act 93-541
  Status: New Law.  New judicial subcircuits were created for Lake, McHenry and Will counties "on or before" February 1, 2004.  The new judicial circuit for McHenry County (the 22nd) will be created on or after December 4, 2006 which separates it (us) from Lake County (the 19th).  McHenry County will be divided into three sub-circuits, Lake County will be divided into six subcircuits and Will County (the 12th Circuit) will be divided into five subcircuits.  This legislation generally has an immediately effective date.

 


 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parentage Injunction Act as to Removal — HB 1382
Public Act 93-139:
 
  Status: New Law.  Effective July 10, 2003


The legislation adds a new provision, Section 13.5 for the Illinois Parentage Act.  It states:

Text:  Sec. 13.5. Injunctive relief.

(a) In any action brought under this Act for the initial determination of custody or visitation of a child or for modification of a prior custody or visitation order, the court, upon application of any party, may enjoin a party having physical possession or custody of a child from temporarily or permanently removing the child from Illinois pending the adjudication of the issues of custody and visitation. When deciding whether to enjoin removal of a child, the Court shall consider the following factors including, but not limited to:

(1) the extent of previous involvement with the child by the party seeking to enjoin removal;
(2) the likelihood that parentage will be established; and
(3) the impact on the financial, physical, and emotional health of the party being enjoined from removing the child.
(b) Injunctive relief under this Act shall be governed by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the court may decline to enjoin a domestic violence victim having physical possession or custody of a child from temporarily or permanently removing the child from Illinois pending the adjudication of the issues of custody and visitation. In determining whether a person is a domestic violence victim, the court shall consider the following factors: (1) a sworn statement by the person that the person has good reason to believe that he or she is the victim of domestic violence or stalking; (2) a sworn statement that the person fears for his or her safety or the safety of his or her children; (3) evidence from police, court or other government agency records or files; (4) documentation from a domestic violence program if the person is alleged to be a victim of domestic violence; (5) documentation from a legal, clerical, medical, or other professional from whom the person has sought assistance in dealing with the alleged domestic violence; and (6) any other evidence that supports the sworn statements, such as a statement from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances that provides the basis for the claim, or physical evidence of the act or acts of domestic violence.  Emphasis added.




The other critical provision is the additional language in Section 14 of the Illinois Parentage Act (Judgments).  It states that, "In determining custody, joint custody, removal, or visitation, the court shall apply the relevant standards of the IMDMA, including Section 609."  Finally, the IPA amends Section 16 (Modifications).  It provides that, "the court has continuing jurisdiction to modify an order for ... removal included in a judgment entered under this Act.  Any ... removal judgment modification shall be in accordance with the relevant factors provided in the "IMDMA" including Section 609."

Discussion:  I believe the legislation might not contain what might be called an "automatic" injunction similar to the language in Section 609 of the IMDMA. Otherwise, why would the legislature have added the provisions for injunctive proceedings and the fact that the court has to apply the "relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure" to the injunctive proceeding to bar removal. Thus, to bar removal pending a petition, etc., you have to show a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection, irreparable injury, no adequate remedy at law, and a likelihood of success on the merits. The lack of adequate remedy at law can be assumed but we are still left with the key provisions of an irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits in the petition for injunction which would also consider as the factors the named ones, i.e.: the extent of the previous involvement with the child by the party seeking to enjoin removal; the likelihood that parentage will be established; and the impact on the party being enjoined from removing the child.

Thus, an argument can be made that the legislation would not have provided for detailed language as to injunctive proceedings if it intended for a party to be automatically enjoined. The argument is that you don't assume that the legislature intended surplusage. You assume the legislation intended to add the injunctive language for a reason.  Then the question is what reason could the legislature have had for adding the injunctive language into the legislation. It is possible the legislation was intended to apply to the situation where parentage has not yet been established -- so that the father is only the putative father, seeking first an injunction and next seeking parentage and visitation.  However, if this were the intent of the statute, why didn't the statute limit itself and just state that it applied in this situation only.  Instead, it applies, "In any action brought under this Act for the initial determination of custody or visitation of a child or for modification of a prior custody or visitation order."


The argument that can be made that a party must seek removal in parentage cases is the language of the statute which provides, "In determining custody, joint custody, removal, or visitation, the court shall apply the relevant standards of the IMDMA, including Section 609."

Section 609(a) states:

The court may grant leave, before or after judgment, to any party having custody of any minor child or children to remove such child or children from Illinois whenever such approval is in the best interests of such child or children. The burden of proving that such removal is in the best interests of such child or children is on the party seeking the removal. When such removal is permitted, the court may require the party removing such child or children from Illinois to give reasonable security guaranteeing the return of such children.

The argument would be that the injunctive proceeding was intended to apply to the situation prior to the hearing on the removal petition, i.e., pre-removal judgment injunction. This is because the statute states that the injunction can be entered (temporary or permanent), "pending the adjudication of the issues of custody and visitation."


On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the legislation could have provided that once a judgment for parentage is entered, the parent awarded custody would be prohibited from removing the children pursuant to Section 609 of the IMDMA. The legislation did not provide this. Instead, it provides that if the court determines removal, it determines it based upon the Section 609 standards. The question is when does the court consider removal? Does the court only consider it following a petition for injunction or does the person seeking to remove the child have to apply for removal? I believe these questions were not answered with certainty in the legislation.


 



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewing, Modifying or Terminating Maintenance – Senate Bill 363:

Public Act 93-353

 
  Status:  Signed into law on July 24, 2003.

Text:  Section 510 of the IMDMA adds a new provision, Section (a-5) which now will read:


(a-5) An order for maintenance may be modified or terminated only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.  In all such proceedings, as well as in proceedings in which maintenance is being reviewed, the court shall consider the applicable factors set forth in subsection (a) of Section 504 and the following factors:

(1) any change in the employment status of either party and whether the change has been made in good faith;

(2) the efforts, if any, made by the party receiving maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reasonableness of the efforts where they are appropriate;

(3) any impairment of the present and future earning capacity of either party;

(4) the tax consequences of the maintenance payments upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties;

(5) the duration of the maintenance payments previously paid (and remaining to be paid) relative to the length of the marriage;

(6) the property, including retirement benefits, awarded to each party under the judgment of dissolution of marriage, judgment of legal separation, or judgment of declaration of invalidity of marriage and the present status of the property;

(7) the increase or decrease in each party's income since the prior judgment or order from which a review, modification, or termination is being sought;

(8) the property acquired and currently owned by each party after the entry of the judgment of dissolution of marriage, judgment of legal separation, or judgment of declaration of invalidity of marriage; and

(9) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and equitable.



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UCCJEA · HB1157:

Public Act 1157



 
  Status: New law effective on the date indicated below.  

Synopsis:  Illinois now joins the majority of states which have enacted the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.  It repeals the UCCJA.  First, it reconciles UCCJA principles with the PKPA, providing primacy to "home state jurisdiction."  In doing so it also provides for continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the original forum state.  Second, it adds interstate civil enforcement for child custody orders. The UCCJEA amends many Acts including the Illinois Public Aid Code, the Intergovernmental Missing Child Recovery Act of 1984, the Criminal Code of 1961, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 by making changes to conform to the creation of the new Act and the repeal of the old Act. Effective January 1, 2004.



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in Guidelines to 28% for Two Children · HB 2863:

 
  Status: Public Act 93-148.  Effective June 10, 2003.

Synopsis:  Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Raises the minimum amount support percentage of the supporting party's net income to 28% for 2 children (from 25%). Effective immediately.



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to UIFSA · SB 922:
 
  Status: Public Act 93-479.  August 8, 2003.  It has an effective date of January 1, 2004 but has a delayed "operative date."  

Synopsis: For a summary of the UIFSA, please see my outline under the articles by The Gitlin Law Firm.  This is legislation which essentially tinkers with the UIFSA.   Illinois is one of the early adopters of this legislation.  The legislative service's summary states:  "Amends the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Makes numerous changes recommended by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The changes include those concerning the following: personal jurisdiction over an individual; jurisdiction to modify or enforce a child support order; duties of a child support enforcement agency; nondisclosure of information; issuance of a temporary child support order; registration of orders for enforcement; modification of a child support order of another state; and jurisdiction to modify a child support order of a foreign country or political subdivision. Provides that the amendatory Act becomes operative upon at least one of the following 2 events taking place, whichever occurs first, but in no event prior to July 1, 2004: (1) the amendment by Congress of subdivision (f) of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 666 to statutorily require or authorize, in connection with the approval of state plans for purposes of federal funding, the adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act as promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2001; or (2) the approval, either generally or with specific application to Illinois, by the federal office of Child Support Enforcement or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, of a waiver, exemption, finding, or other indicia of regulatory approval of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2001, in connection with the approval of state plans for purposes of federal funding."




 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Support Enforcement Amendments · HB 16:

 
  Status: Public Act 93-116  Effective date July 10, 2003.  This Public Act creates a new provision of the IMDMA -- Section 714.  It also creates the same new provision of the Non-Support Punishment Act and the Illinois Parentage Act.  It provides:  

Text:  

Sec. 714. Information to locate putative fathers and noncustodial parents.
(a) Upon request by a public office, employers, labor unions, and telephone companies shall provide location information concerning putative fathers and noncustodial parents for the purpose of establishing a child's paternity or establishing, enforcing, or modifying a child support obligation. The term "public office" is defined as set forth in the Income Withholding for Support Act. In this Section, "location information" means information about (i) the physical whereabouts of a putative father or noncustodial parent, (ii) the employer of the putative father or noncustodial parent, or (iii) the salary, wages, and other compensation paid and the health insurance coverage provided to the putative father or noncustodial parent by the employer of the putative father or noncustodial parent or by a labor union of which the putative father or noncustodial parent is a member. An employer, labor union, or telephone company shall respond to the request of the public office within 15 days after receiving the request. Any employer, labor union, or telephone company that willfully fails to fully respond within the 15-day period shall be subject to a penalty of $100 for each day that the response is not provided to the public office after the 15-day period has expired. The penalty may be collected in a civil action, which may be brought against the employer, labor union, or telephone company in favor of the public office.  
(b) Upon being served with a subpoena (including an administrative subpoena as authorized by law), a utility company or cable television company must provide location information to a public office for the purpose of establishing a child's paternity or establishing, enforcing, or modifying a child support obligation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other State or local law to the contrary, an employer, labor union, telephone company, utility company, or cable television company shall not be liable to any person for disclosure of location information under the requirements of this Section, except for willful and wanton misconduct.

 



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$100 Per Day Penalties for Failure to Withhold Income · Originally HB 2523:

Version Passed - SB1503 / Public Act 93-294

 
  Status:  Public Act as of 7/22/03.  Effective date January 1, 2004.

Background and Synopsis:  This is legislation I drafted (see the discussion about this law at my seminar as part of my presentation to IICLE in January 2003).  It passed the House by a vote of 114 -2-1.  The law amends the Income Withholding for Support Act.  It requires a payor who has been served with an income withholding notice to withhold the specified amount from an obligee's wages (instead of merely requiring a payor to merely payor over amounts already withheld). It provides that if the payor fails to withhold from the payor's wages or pay over amounts withheld, the payor shall pay a penalty of $100 per day, for each day after the 7 business days grace period has expired, the amount not paid to the State Disbursement Unit.

Text:  The legislation provides:

(750 ILCS 28/35) Sec. 35. Duties of payor (a) It shall be the duty of any payor who has been served with an income withholding notice to deduct and pay over income as provided in this Section. The payor shall deduct the amount designated in the income withholding notice, as supplemented by any notice provided pursuant to subsection (f) of Section 45, beginning no later than the next payment of income which is payable or creditable to the obligor that occurs 14 days following the date the income withholding notice was mailed, sent by facsimile or other electronic means, or placed for personal delivery to or service on the payor. The payor may combine all amounts withheld for the benefit of an obligee or public office into a single payment and transmit the payment with a listing of obligors from whom withholding has been effected. The payor shall pay the amount withheld to the State Disbursement Unit within 7 business days after the date the amount would (but for the duty to withhold income) have been paid or credited to the obligor. If the payor knowingly fails to withhold the amount designated in the income withholding notice or to pay any amount withheld to the State Disbursement Unit within 7 business days after the date the amount would have been paid or credited to the obligor, then the payor shall pay a penalty of $100 for each day that the withheld amount designated in the income withholding notice (whether or not withheld by the payor) is not paid to the State Disbursement Unit after the period of 7 business days has expired. The failure of a payor, on more than one occasion, to pay amounts withheld to the State Disbursement Unit within 7 business days after the date the amount would have been paid or credited to the obligor creates a presumption that the payor knowingly failed to pay over the amounts. This penalty may be collected in a civil action which may be brought against the payor in favor of the obligee or public office. A finding of a payor's nonperformance within the time required under this Act must be documented by a certified mail return receipt showing the date the income withholding notice was served on the payor. For purposes of this Act, a withheld amount shall be considered paid by a payor on the date it is mailed by the payor, or on the date an electronic funds transfer of the amount has been initiated by the payor, or on the date delivery of the amount has been initiated by the payor. For each deduction, the payor shall provide the State Disbursement Unit, at the time of transmittal, with the date the amount would (but for the duty to withhold income) have been paid or credited to the obligor.

Language which I had included in my draft legislation had stated:  "Payment of a penalty of $100 per day is mandatory unless the payor demonstrates the payor's compelling cause or justification for the payor's failure to withhold or the payor's failure to pay over withheld amounts to the State Disbursement Unit."  While I believe that my language had a more appropriate standard, my goal had been to put "teeth" into the legislation.  The legislation as now amended is a vast improvement over the previous law.



 


Illinois Uniform Mediation Act - HB 2146:

710 ILCS 35/

 
  Status:  Public Act as of 7/31/03 and an effective date of January 1, 2004.

Synopsis:  This uniform act provides that it applies to mediation where the "parties are required to mediate by statute or court or administrative agency rule or referred to mediation by a court."  The Uniform Act codifies the provisions in many local mediation rules and provides that, "mediation communication is privileged as provided in subsection (b) and is not subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in a proceeding unless waived or precluded as provided by Section 5."  The rules provide that, "A nonparty participant may refuse to disclose, and may prevent any other person from disclosing, a mediation communication of the nonparty participant."  It also provides, "Evidence or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason of its disclosure or use in a mediation."  There are very few exceptions such as a threat to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence.  The rules also regulate conflicts of interests for mediators.



 


"An Act Concerning Confidential Intermediaries" -- Public Act 93-189:
 
  Status: New Law, Effective January 1, 2004

Synopsis:  This law provides that any adopted person 21 years of age or older, any any adoptive parent of an adopted person under age 21 or any birth parent of an adopted person who is older than age 21 may petition a court in any county within Illinois for appointment of a confidential intermediary.  The purpose is:

exchanging medical information with one or more mutually consenting biological relatives,
obtaining identifying information about one or more mutually consenting biological relatives, or
arranging contact with one or more mutually consenting biological relatives.
The standard for the court to grant the petition is only that, "disclosure is of greater benefit than nondisclosure."  However, the statute provides that the Confidential Intermediary must conduct a search and and first determine if there is no Denial of Information Exchange on file with the Illinois Adoption Registry.  If such a document has been filed, then the intermediary reports this fact, and the intermediary's job is terminated.  There are also provisions for sanctions for inappropriate disclosures.



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ISBA -- Custody Law Proposal:
 
  Status:  The ISBA is currently seeking comments upon the custody law proposal from ISBA members at its web-site.  See:  //www.isba.org/legislative/custodyproposal/  For a further discussion of this see, Illinois Bar Journal, April 2004, Vol 92, p. 170-171.

Synopsis:  The ISBA states, "For the third time in recent years, the ISBA Family Law Section Council has proposed a far-reaching improvement in the practice of domestic relations."  It promotes the draft legislation as being "kidcentric."  To see the custody law proposal, itself, in pdf format, click here.



 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Supreme Court Reviews Rules Including Proposed Rules in All Custody Cases:
 
  Status:  The Illinois Supreme Court conducted a public hearing on September 10, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. at 160 N. LaSalle Street, Room C-500, Chicago.  Gunnar J. Gitlin testified at that hearing.  The proposed amendments are:

00-13 (PR 98)  Amends Rule 237 (Compelling Appearance of Witnesses at Trial);

4-01 (PR 114)  Amends Rule 23.

4-10 (PR 117)  Proposal 1 from the ISBA -- Creates new Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17 and amends Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4, 5.6 and 7.2.  Proposal 2 from ABA -- Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17

4-11 (PR 118)  Amends Rule 604(a); and

4-16 (PR 129)  Creates New Rules 900-908, 921-925, 941 and 942.  This was "offered by the Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues."  It would create an Article IX to the rules.  The preamble states:

Rule 900. Purpose and Scope. (New)
(a) Purpose. Trial courts have a special responsibility in cases involving the care and custody of children. When a child is a ward of the court, the physical and emotional well-being of the child is literally the business of the court. The purpose of this Article (Rules 900 through 990) is to expedite cases affecting the custody of a child, to ensure the coordination of custody matters filed under different statutory Acts, and to focus child custody proceedings on the best interests of the child, while protecting the rights of other parties to the proceedings.

It then would have definitions:

(b)(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this Article "child custody proceeding" means an action affecting child custody or visitation. "Child" means a person who has not attained the age of 18.

(b)(2) Part A. Scope. Rules 900 through 920, except as stated therein, apply to all child custody proceedings initiated under Article II, III, or IV of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 and Article 112A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, and guardianship matters involving a minor under Article XI of the Probate Act of 1975.

The General Rules at 901 would provide:

Rule 901. General Rules. (New)
(a) Expedited Hearings. Child custody proceedings shall be scheduled and heard on an expedited basis. Hearings in child custody proceedings shall be held in strict compliance with applicable deadlines established by statute or by this Article.
(b) Setting of Hearings. Hearings in child custody proceedings shall be set for specific times. At each hearing, the next hearing shall be scheduled and the parties shall be notified of the date and time of the next hearing. Hearings rescheduled following a continuance shall be set for the earliest possible date.
(c) Continuances. Parties, witnesses and counsel shall be held accountable for attending hearings in child custody proceedings. Continuances shall not be granted in child custody proceedings except for good cause shown, and shall be granted only if the continuance is consistent with the health, safety and best interests of the child. The party requesting the continuance and the reasons for the continuance shall be documented in the record, including the factual findings supporting the court's determination that the continuance is in the best interests of
the child.
(d) In any child custody proceeding taken under advisement by the trial court, the trial judge shall render its decision as soon as possible but not later than 60 days after the completion of the trial.




There is then a new pleading rule stating:

Rule 902. Pleadings. (New)
(a) Complaint or Petition. The initial complaint or petition in a child custody proceeding shall state 1) whether the child involved is the subject of any other child custody proceeding pending before another division of the circuit court, or another court or administrative body of Illinois or of any other state, an Indian tribe, or a foreign country and 2) whether any order affecting the custody or visitation of the child has been entered by the circuit court or any of its divisions, or by another court or administrative body of Illinois or of any other state, an Indian tribe, or a foreign country. If any child custody proceeding is pending with respect to the child, or any order has been entered with respect to the custody or visitation of the child, the initial complaint or petition shall identify the tribunal involved and the parties to the action.
(b) Verification of Initial Complaint or Petition. The plaintiff or petitioner in a child custody proceeding shall verify the pleadings required by paragraph (a) of this rule. If the plaintiff or petitioner is a public agency, the verification shall be on information and belief of the attorney filing the pleading and shall state that reasonable efforts were made to obtain all information relevant to the matters
verified.
(c) Answer or Appearance. In a child custody proceeding the defendant's (or respondent's) answer, if required, shall include a verified disclosure of any relevant information known to the defendant (or respondent) regarding any pending 5
proceedings or orders described in paragraph (a) of this rule. Any defendant or respondent who appears but is not required to file an answer in the child custody matter shall be questioned under oath by the court at the party's first appearance before the court regarding any proceedings or orders described in paragraph (a) of this rule.
(d) Continuing Duty. The parties have a continuing duty to disclose information relating to other pending child custody proceedings or any existing
orders affecting the custody or visitation of the child, and shall immediately disclose to the court and the other parties to the proceeding any such information obtained after the initial pleadings, answer or appearance.

There is then a poorly drafted rule which would provide:

Part A. Rules of General Application to Child Custody Proceedings.
Rule 904. Case Management Conferences. (New)
In child custody proceedings other than cases under Articles II, III and IV of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, and cases under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984 provided for under Part B of this Article (see Rule 923), an initial case management conference pursuant to Rule 218 shall be held not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition or complaint.
If not previously resolved, the court shall address the appointment of a guardian ad litem or counsel for the child and counsel for any indigent party entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel at the initial case management conference.

Because of the cost of a GAL or attorney of the child, etc., the Supreme Court should not dictate that the court "address the appointment."  Moreover, the rule neglects even mentioning the child's attorney, etc.  

 

These new rules are too lengthy to specifically incorporate. Briefly, there would be new rules mandating mediation in custody cases state-wide (limited to custody and visitation issues).  There would be new rules provided for:

Uniform minimum standards for mediation in divorce cases (Rule 905)
Minimum qualification and education standards for attorney's appointed by the court to represent children in custody proceedings (rule 906);
Minimum duties and responsibilities of attorneys for minor children (Rule 907);
Judicial training on custody Issues (Rule 908);  
Time limitations in custody proceedings -- providing that generally these issues must be resolved within 18 months. (Rule 922);
Mandatory case management conferences with the initial conference addressing parenting education, custody and parenting plan and mediation.  There is a requirement for a "full case management conference" not later than 30 days after mediation is completed.  (Rule 923);
Mandatory parenting education program (Rule 924);
Mandatory appointment of child's representatives, AFC or GAL after mediation (perhaps one of the poorest thought out proposals which is Rule 925);        
Every Illinois family lawyer should be aware of the potential impact of these proposed Supreme Court Rules in custody cases.
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gitlin Law Firm provides the above information as a continuing legal education to other lawyers.  A person's accessing the information contained in this web site, is not considered as retaining The Gitlin Law Firm for any case nor is it considered as providing legal advice.

The Gitlin Law Firm
Practice Limited to Family Law
663 East Calhoun Street
Woodstock, IL 60098
815/338-9401

//www.gitlinlawfirm.com
© Copyright 2004, Gitlin Law Firm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Top
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home | Who We Are | Location of the Firm | C.V. of Gunnar J. Gitlin |
'Gitlin on Divorce' Online Research System | Info:Online Research System |
Glossary | Questions & Answers | Do's & Don'ts:Children in Divorce Cases |
Divorce Links | Other Family Lawyers | Contact Us

FOR LAWYERS ONLY:
Writings of Gitlin Law Firm Lawyers | Custody Links | Pending/Recently Enacted Legislation | Family Law Public Acts (including IMDMA)


 
#47
Visitation Issues / HELP FIGHT PAS
Dec 27, 2004, 07:55:49 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/PAS1716/

"Children learn what they live"
#48

August 13, 2004

PRESS RELEASE


For Immediate Release


Senator Burton defies California Supreme Court




Summary

California non-custodial parents are being railroaded by vigilante
legislator John Burton. Burton has eviscerated  SB 730, a finance bill,
and replaced wording to totally reverse the recent Supreme Court LaMusga
decision. California citizens need immediate information about this
devious, late-term, maneuver.

  Keywords

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
MOVEAWAYS, DIVORCE, CHILD CUSTODY, NON-CUSTODIAL
PARENT RIGHTS



El Sobrante, California, August 13, 2004: Senator John Burton, President
Pro Tem of the California State Senate, is engaged in a direct challenge
to the Supreme Court's recent LaMusga decision, which affects tens of
thousands of non-custodial parents in California.

Unbeknownst to his fellow legislators and the public, Senator Burton has
taken a mundane bill on per diem finances and replaced the text with a
point- by-point reversal of the Supreme Court's decision.

Website: http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_730&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Taking advantage of the rushed end of the legislative session, Burton
plans to present the bill on August 17 and have it passed by both houses
before August 31.

In an apparent move to further disenfranchise non-custodial parents
(usually fathers), Senator Burton arrogantly assumes that he has the right
to single- handedly legislate the relationships between parents and the
children of divorce in the State of California.

California citizens deserve to be alerted to this devious attempt at
dictatorial social engineering.

Californians – please call your legislators and ask for postponement and
public discussion of SB 730. They can be found at : http://www.sen.ca.gov,
http://www.assembly.ca.gov, or in your local newspaper.

Your future with your children is about to be taken from you.

=======================================

Contact:

Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.
510-262-0777
510-849-2555
Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.
24 Oak Creek Road
El Sobrante, California  94803-3506

Dedicated to Joint and Equal Parenting



#49
Visitation Issues / CBS- Move Aways
Aug 13, 2004, 11:36:45 AM
CBS Morning News would like to interview a move-away family anywhere in the
country, that is, a mom and dad, and their child who is old enough to
verbalize about the move-away.  If you are part of such a family, or know of
one, contact Aurelia Grayson at CBS at [email protected].
CBS saw the front page New York Times article on move-aways Sunday, August
8, which quoted CRC.  
"Children learn what they live"
#50
http://www.helpstoppas.com/

I copied this from another group, important to all of us.


Our most pressing goal at this time
> is to present material
> regarding PAS and how it should be handled in the
> family court system at the
> Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
> Texas Chapter
> Conference in Houston titled "Co-Parenting
> Solutions: Tools for Diffusing
> Conflict" that starts on September 30th and runs
> through October 1st.
>
http://www.afccnet.org/conferences/chapter_conferences.asp.

"Children learn what they live"
#51
Custody Issues / Repost, many new people here...
Jun 28, 2005, 11:07:56 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/usncpr/petition.html

"Children learn what they live"
#52
Divorced Wiccans fight divorce order to shield son from their
beliefs
>
> By KEN KUSMER
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> INDIANAPOLIS, May 26 — A Wiccan activist and his ex-wife are
> challenging a court's order that they must protect their 9-year-old
> son from what it calls their ''non-mainstream religious beliefs and
> rituals.''
>
>  The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has appealed the stipulation
> written into the couple's divorce order, saying it is
> unconstitutionally vague because it does not define mainstream
> religion.
>        Thomas Jones, a Wiccan activist who has coordinated Pagan
> Pride Day in Indianapolis for six years, said he and his ex-wife,
> Tammy Bristol, were stunned by the order. Neither parent has taken
> their son to any Wiccan rituals since it was issued, he said.
>        ''We both had an instant resolve to challenge it. We could
not
> accept it,'' Jones said Thursday. ''I'm afraid I'll lose my son if I
> let him around when I practice my religion.''
>        A court commissioner wrote the unusual order after a routine
> report by the court's Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau noted
that
> both Jones and his ex-wife are pagans who send their son, Archer, to
> a Catholic elementary school.
>        In the order, the parents were ''directed to take such steps
> as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of
> these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.'' The judge let
> the wording stand.
>        The order has been criticized by various religious and
> advocacy groups.
>        Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based
> Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said judges
> cannot substitute their religious judgment for that of parents in
> regard to the upbringing of children.
>        ''This is an absurd result, because in the eyes of the law
> being a pagan should be no different from being a Presbyterian,'' he
> said.
>        Wiccans contend their religion is becoming more mainstream.
> The parents' appeal says there were about 1 million pagans worldwide
> in 2002, more than the numbers who practice Sikhism, Taoism and
other
> established religions in the United States.
>        Wiccans consider themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans,
and
> say their religion is based on respect for the earth, nature and the
> cycle of the seasons.
>        ''There continues to be misunderstanding and prejudice and
> discrimination, not only against Wicca but against any religion that
> is not centered on monotheism,'' said the Rev. Elena Fox, high
> priestess and senior minister of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church
> and pagan resource center near Madison, Wis.
>        The head of a conservative Christian group also sided with
the
> Wiccans.
>        ''The parents have the right to raise their child in that
> faith, just as I have the right to raise my child in the Christian
> faith,'' said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family
> Association of Indiana.
>
>
>        On the Net:
>        Circle Sanctuary: //www.circlesanctuary.org
>

"Children learn what they live"
#53
Custody Issues / Heads Up, NH.... we can all help
Apr 07, 2005, 07:17:32 PM
I am not from NH, but am writing to help them get this thru...Only takes a few minutes to make a difference.

Urgent
Senate Judiciary Committee public hearing:
 
Tues. April 12, 2005
 

1:45 p.m.         HB 61 - extending the family law task force for the purpose of monitoring implementation of the task force's November 2004 recommendations.

 

2:00 p.m.         HB 640-FN -transfers all provisions regarding children in RSA 458, relative to divorce, to a separate chapter governing parental rights and responsibilities. The bill replaces the term of custody with the phrase parental rights and responsibility, requires parents to file parenting plans to divide parental rights and responsibilities, and provides criteria for determining the best interest of a child. The bill also removes the requirement that the parties consent to mediation as a first attempt to resolve differences.

 
 
Concerning HB 61.  It was the family law task force came to the House Child and Family Law Committee opposing a presumption that equally shared parent rights and responsibilities are in the child's best interest (HB 529).
 
Since the Task Force has finished it's task and will continue to work against a presumption it might be best to ask the senators to kill HB 61.
After all the court has set up a commission to do the same work.  Why duplicate at tax payer expense.  Eight of the Task Force members are
state workers that have to leave their regular jobs to attend to task force issues.
 
HB 640 can be amended by a Senator in the Judiciary Committee to recreate HB 529 the presumption in favor of shared parental rights and responsibilities bill.  
 
In order to do that members of the public would have to request one or more of the senators listed below to insert the following sentences.
Copy and send to them:

Amend HB 640 with the following:

461-A:6 Determination of Parental Rights and Responsibilities; Best Interest.

I. In determining parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall be guided by the presumption that equally shared parent rights and responsibilities are in the child's best interest.

II. If the court finds clear and convincing evidence that equally shared parental rights and responsibilities, including residential responsibility, are not in the child's best interest, the court shall state the basis for the decision in the court order.

 

 

This means testimony, calls, and emails are needed otherwise it will be necessary to wait till Nov.

Senate Judiciary members:

Joseph A. Foster, Chairman, of District 13 comprises: Wards 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in the city of Nashua.
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 107
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-3569
[email protected]

Home:
9 Keats St.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2509
(603) 891-0307


Robert E. Clegg, V Chairman, of District 14 comprises: Auburn, Hudson and Londonderry.
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 304
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-3039
[email protected]

Home:
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, N.H. 03051-5120
(603) 880-6193
[email protected]


Richard Green of District 6 comprises: Barrington, Madbury, Nottingham, Rochester and Somersworth.
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 9
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-3080
[email protected]

Home:
15 Nola Ave.
Rochester, N.H. 03067
(603) 332-1567

Robert J. Letourneau of District 19 comprises: Derry, Hampstead and Windham.
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 120
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-2709
[email protected]

Home:
30 South Ave.
Derry, N.H. 03038
(603) 434-1038

Sheila Roberge, of District 9 comprises: Bedford, Greenfield, Lyndeborough, Merrimack, Mont Vernon and New Boston.
Senate Office:
Legislative Office Building, Room 103-A
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-8630
[email protected]

Home:
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, N.H. 03110-4816
(603) 472-8391

David Gottesman of District 12 comprises: Brookline, Hollis, Mason, and Wards 1, 2, 5, and 9 in the city of Nashua.
Senate Office:
Statehouse
107 N. Main St., Room 107
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603) 271-2735
[email protected]

Home:
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, N.H. 03063-1308
(603) 889-4442


 


"Children learn what they live"
#54
Custody Issues / Question on DNA testing
Mar 10, 2005, 10:03:31 AM
How old does a child need to be for DNA testing to take place?

"Children learn what they live"
#55
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:40:04 -0500
From: Stephen Baskerville
To: Stephen Baskerville
Subject: "The Doofus Department"

Hopefully the piece below, published today on LewRockwell.com it may provide a small gift of consolation to the many maligned fathers whose children are spending this Christmas without them and perhaps believing they are abandoned.  The only thing crueler than tearing children from their parents is falsely leading children to believe that they are unloved by their fathers.

Stephen Baskerville
***************************************

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville6.html


             The Doofus Department
             by Stephen Baskerville
             by Stephen Baskerville, PhD



             Those madcap child support officials are at it again. Ever vigilant in their pursuit of the elusive deadbeat, these Wile E. Coyotes of family policy are devising ever-more outlandish schemes to snare their quarry. It is ironic that a prominent theme in today's media culture is so-called doofus dads, bumbling fools invariably defeated by the superior wisdom of their wives and children. For despite ever greater outlays of taxpayers' money for ever more intrusive incursions into civil liberties, it is not so much the fathers as their pursuers who are shooting themselves in the foot.

             Their latest escapade concerns Viola Trevino, who discovered she could obtain a child support order against a man without the inconvenience of actually having a child. Steve Barreras was forced to pay $20,000 for a child that, it turns out, never existed. Barreras protested for years and produced documentation that no child could possibly exist, but he was ignored by New Mexico's Child Support Enforcement Division. "The child support system in this state is horrible," an Albuquerque woman tells a reporter. "A woman can walk into their office with a birth certificate and a 'sob' story and the man on that birth certificate is hunted down and forced to pay child support." Yet the agency - which ironically claims to be keeping an eye on other people's parental "responsibilities" - claims they were not responsible for the shakedown of Barreras, because they were "merely enforcing child support already ordered by a judge." No automatic provision requires the return of the fraudulently ordered payments, so to recover his money Barreras must hire more attorneys and sue.

             Though officials try to dismiss such shenanigans as aberrations, they proceed logically from the child support system, which was created by lawyers and feminists not to provide for children but to plunder fathers and transfer their earnings to other grown-ups. In an increasingly typical decision, a Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in November that a mother could collect full child support from two men for the same child.

             But mothers are not the only ones using children to make a fast buck. Such apparently inane rulings are explicable only by the fact that child support is a moneymaker for lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, and government coffers, plus private hangers-on - all at the expense of fathers and federal taxpayers.

             Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox recently hailed the passage of six (!) new laws that he says will help collect child support. But Cox already has egg on his face from his ill-fated scheme to recruit the state's children as government propagandists. Cox offered free Domino's pizzas to children who designed billboards vilifying their own fathers as deadbeats. He even invited mothers to express their feelings about their former husbands through their children's artwork. But far from shaming the supposed scoundrels, it was Cox who was forced to retreat with his tail between his legs. He cancelled the campaign when first the public and then Domino's directed more anger against him than against the fathers. One political cartoonist showed Cox telling a young child that she could not see her father but she could have a pepperoni pizza.

             Michigan's enforcement methods have been the subject of federal legal challenges. Attorney Michael Tindall relates in Michigan Lawyers Weekly how he was arrested without warning when his payments were current. Wayne County enforcement agents admitted under oath that they frequently increase accounts without valid court orders. A federal court ruled that Michigan violated Tindall's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet the agency defied the court and even initiated another round of enforcement using the same illegal procedures to collect the same arrearage they had admitted was erroneous. Cox's campaign came as Michigan was set to lose $208 million in federal funds if it did not meet federal guidelines for organizing its collection system. To comply, the state promised to accelerate the very measures that the federal court had ruled were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

             In just the last few months, repeated exposés of mismanagement and fraud throughout the child support system have poured forth from journalists, scholars, and even some officials themselves. These include charges of illegal and unconstitutional practices that violate basic civil liberties.

             In Society, Bryce Christensen writes, "The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support.have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state and have violated the rights of innocent and often impoverished fathers." In The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments, William Comanor and a team of scholars have documented horrific abuses. Ronald Henry's essay calls the system and its rationalization "an obvious sham," a "disaster," and "the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States." The fraudulent and predatory nature of the child support system has been documented in peer-reviewed publications by the Independent Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Political Science Association, and repeatedly in Society.

             In 2002, a Georgia superior court ruled that the state's guidelines "bear no relationship to the constitutional standards for child support" and create "a windfall to the obligee." Characterizing the guidelines as "contrary both to public policy and common sense," the court noted that they bear no connection to any understanding of the cost of raising children. "The custodial parent does not contribute to child costs at the same rate as the non-custodial parent and, often, not at all," the court notes. "The presumptive award leaves the non-custodial parent in poverty while the custodial parent enjoys a notably higher standard of living." The court anticipated the findings of Comanor and his team: "The guidelines are so excessive as to force non-custodial parents to frequently work extra jobs for basic needs.. Obligors are frequently forced to work in a cash economy to survive."

             A Wisconsin court likewise found that state's guidelines "result in a figure so far beyond the child's needs as to be irrational." When a court struck down Tennessee's guidelines on similar grounds, the state Department of Human Services (which jails fathers for violating court orders), announced they would not abide by the ruling.

             One may disagree with these assessments. Yet despite admitting that the system it oversees is "way out of balance," the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has never even acknowledged these scathing allegations or made any effort to correct them.

             Last summer, HHS's Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) held an invitation-only meeting for local officials and a few organizations and announced (in a perhaps unfortunate wording) a new "five-year plan" called the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan.

             OCSE Director Sherri Heller promised to develop fairer procedures. Yet nothing in the Plan addresses the violations of constitutional rights and civil liberties. In a peculiar example of Orwellian newspeak, the Plan promises to build a "culture of compliance," in which parents support their children "voluntarily" but also says that "severe enforcement remedies" will be used against parents who fail to volunteer.

             The Plan includes nothing about the desirability of observing due process of law or respecting constitutional rights. No concern is expressed that guidelines be just and appropriate. Nowhere is the charge addressed that child support may be subsidizing family breakups, nor is the possibility raised of using federal subsidies to encourage shared parenting, which would relieve the overall enforcement load. No concrete measures or incentives are advanced for requiring or encouraging the involvement of non-custodial parents in the decision-making or raising of their children.

             None of the scholars who have criticized the system's ethics and methods was invited to speak at this or any other meeting sponsored by OCSE. Instead house academic Elaine Sorensen was trotted out to reinforce the official line. Sorensen dismissed the Georgia Superior Court decision as "only one judge's opinion."

             If any public official (plus millions of citizens) is alleging that federal police operations are sending innocent people to prison, one would think this at least a matter for discussion, if not investigation - especially in an agency that acknowledges its operations are "way out of balance." But OCSE have their fingers in their ears. One official acknowledged that in preparing the Plan no solicitation of public comments was ever issued and no systematic citizen input was collected.

             The appointment of a new HHS secretary offers the Bush administration the opportunity to honestly confront the sprawling welfare machine in its destructive entirety. Though Mike Leavitt seems to have little experience in these matters, he may also arrive free of the ideological baggage that made his predecessor Tommy Thompson one of the most authoritarian and disliked figures in the administration.

             The Associated Press reports that Indiana is losing more than $57 million a year in state and federal tax dollars to collect child support payments averaging about $54 a week. Yet in a bold leap of logic, the AP blames the boondoggle not on the legislators who are wasting taxpayers' money but on unnamed malefactors who are about as real as Viola Trevino's baby.

             December 27, 2004

             Stephen Baskerville [send him mail] is a political scientist at Howard University and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

             Copyright © 2004 Stephen Baskerville



       Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page





***************************************
Stephen Baskerville, PhD
President
American Coalition for Fathers & Children
1718 M Street, NW
Suite 187
Washington, DC  20036
//www.acfc.org
[email protected]
800-978-DADS (3237)

Department of Political Science
Howard University
Washington, DC  20059
202-806-7267
703-560-5138

For more than 40 articles on families and fathers, see: //www.stephenbaskerville.net

"Children learn what they live"
#56
Custody Issues / Quick Question on Depositions
Nov 30, 2004, 10:37:52 AM
Anyone here ever have to pay a 'professional' for their time on a deposition?

Being charged for a Doctors depo?

"Children learn what they live"
#57
Custody Issues / Environmental Concerns
Nov 06, 2004, 09:13:23 AM
My trial is soon approaching. For those who have been thru the process of a trial, can anyone tell me how much weight, if any, is put on the surrounding environment of a child? I have a dangerous situation surrounding my son on all sides. I can't go into much, due to the PBFH has found me here.

All suggestions are most appreciated...

"Children learn what they live"
#58
The Non-Custodial Petition is no longer on line?

"Children learn what they live"
#59
Custody Issues / Article from Boston, Mass
Nov 05, 2004, 10:41:28 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/05/changes_in_fathers_custody_rights_urged/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20City%20/%20Region%20News

Changes in fathers' custody rights urged

By Elise Castelli, Globe Correspondent  |  November 5, 2004

Armed with voters' approval of nonbinding initiatives in more than 30
legislative districts, a group that wants to increase the parental custody
rights of divorced fathers is urging lawmakers to change state laws to
''uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and
legal custody of their children."

''As things stand now with sole custody given to one parent, the
noncustodial parent finds himself the fifth wheel," said Dr. Ned Holstein,
president of Fathers & Families, the advocacy group that pushed for the
initiative. ''The short amount of time spent together are painful times,
not happy times, because it reminds the child and the parent of what they
don't have anymore, an intimate relationship."

Under current state law, the judge in a divorce case determines custody in
the best interest of the child with the presumption of shared legal
custody. Generally, that means the child lives with one parent, and both
parents share in decision making. Advocates want to change the law to
encourage joint custody, shared by both parents, as the standard in
divorce law. Holstein said the change is needed ''because the parent is
removed from the child's life and doesn't know what is going on between
the child and their friends, teachers, baseball team, and things that
really matter."

Legislators in districts where the proposal passed said they would press
for change. If enacted, Massachusetts would become the 12th state to have
legal support for joint custody. Twelve other states give preference to
shared custody when both parties agree.

''I'll take this, but I want to be practical and come up with a law that
can work and most importantly work in the best interest of the child,"
said Representative Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop.

DeLeo, who once worked in probate court and has handled family law cases
over the years, said that splitting time between two homes can be
disruptive, because a child's life is focused on school, friends, and
activities in their community. ''It's best for each child to have as much
time with both parents as possible, but I don't see how you can cut a
child in two," he said. ''You have to have some continuity."

The Massachusetts Bar Association opposed the change to shared physical
custody when it came before the Legislature because it took discretion
away from the courts and placed the best interest of the child second,
according to Denise Squillante, former chairwoman of the family law
division of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

''To create an automatic presumption takes away too much discretion from
the court," said Squillante, who has been practicing family law for 21
years. ''No two cases are the same. They all call on different facts."

Squillante said that in cases where judges determine that both parents are
fit, the courts should be allowed to maintain the current pattern in the
household to avoid disruption in children's lives.

''This [proposed] law is not the answer in my experience, because there
are very few situations where parents are able to work out a shared
physical arrangement," she said. ''Kids don't like to be bounced back and
forth and living out of a suitcase."

Holstein said, however, that shared physical custody will help quell many
problems faced by youth. He cited poor grades, substance abuse, gang
violence, and pregnancy, and said they are rampant among children in
single parent homes.

''This is a cost-free method to address the problems of youth by finding
ways to give them back their fathers instead of giving them programs," he
said.

  Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

"Children learn what they live"
#60
Custody Issues / Information Posting...
Nov 04, 2004, 04:03:48 PM
Thanks to Michael Austin for the following.

ACFC
http://www.acfc.org/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
The Massachusetts Joint Physical Custody Ballot Question

won overwhelmingly yesterday!

 

Congratulations to Massachusetts Fathers & Families, the

Fatherhood Coalition, the Children's Rights Council of MA,

Massachusetts, the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, and others.

 

According to Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families of Massachusetts,

the coordinator of the effort, "approximately 85% voted for joint physical

custody of children...The lopsided margin of victory was greater than

that of any elected official in Massachusetts, including John Kerry,

Barney Frank, or Jim McGovern. In two towns, it passed by about 2-1...

and in every other town the margin was even larger, often approaching

8-1 or 9-1. Approximately 600,000 Massachusetts citizens voted on our

non-binding ballot question, representing every area of the state, every

ethnic group and every social class."

 

Details:  http://fathersandfamilies.org/site/legislation.php
 
F&FMA Home:  http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/index.php
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Children Need BOTH Parents!

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children

For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
or see ACFC's homepages at: http://www.acfc.org


"Children learn what they live"