From Glenn Sacks.......
As many of you know, during Sunday's broadcast I announced a new His Side
listener campaign. It is the first since our consumer boycott campaign against
the 'Boys are Stupid' Products, a coordinated action which achieved its primary
objectives and made newspapers all over the world.
Our new campaign is designed to prevent Senate President Pro Tem John Burton
(D-San Francisco) from sneaking a "stealth" bill through the legislature which
would harm children and the fathers they love and need by destroying the
California Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) .
The Burton bill would give custodial parents the right to move children
wherever they want, whenever they want--without even needing to obtain a court order.
We won round one.
On Monday and Tuesday hundreds of His Side listeners--supporters of the newly
formed Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways
(//www.ACCAMA.org)--bombarded Burton's office with calls, faxes and e-mails. By noon, Burton's
principal consultant Anthony Williams contacted ACCAMA and invited its
representatives to meet and discuss the situation. See Talk Radio Campaign Blocks CA.
Senate Leader's 'Stealth' Family Law Bill (MND Newswire, 7/14/04) for more details.
I have extended Senator Burton an open invitation to appear on His Side to
discuss his bill.
Like most in Sacramento, Williams is accustomed to only hearing the feminist
viewpoint on family law, and was no doubt stunned at the avalanche of
opposition. More importantly, because of the large response, it will no longer be
possible for Burton to slip the bill through unnoticed. This fight will have
several rounds--I will inform you when further action is needed. In the interim, I
recommend that you browse the ACCAMA site's [a href=http://www.accama.org/information.php]information page[/a].
While DH and I aren't in CA we are very concerned about the move away issue. Our Psychomommy moved from WI to CO and left no forwarding address with anyone except (of course) child support.
She has since moved back and only by the grace of god and her own ignorance was jurisdiction never moved to CO after her 6 month of residence there.
Please keep us posted on this!! Again thanks.
What he is trying to do is very scary....
LEGISLATIVE ALERT
=================================
Anti-LaMusga Legislation
As far as BriefCase can ascertain, no official "legislative response"
has yet been introduced to overturn the LaMusga opinion. However, a
draft of a proposed bill is being circulated that is attributed to
Senator John Burton. As the time to introduce new legislation has
passed, the rumor is that he will hijack a bill that has been through
committee, such as a transportation bill, gut it, insert the enclosed
language and then bring it to a vote on the floor before there can be
critical debate on it. Sen. Burton clearly has the power to do this.
Concerned organizations and interested persons are mobilizing to make
certain that their representatives and the Governor are aware of their
opinions on the proposed legislation. Flexcom has already taken a very
strong stand and the text of their letter is set forth below. ACFLS and
the Southern California Chapter of AAML are considering a response.
It is important our legislators and the Governor hear as many views as
possible on this most important topic.
In addition to your individual representatives, you should let the
following people know your opinion on the proposed legislation and the
tactic of bringing it to a vote without input or debate:
Drew Liebert Chief Counsel Assembly Judiciary Committee 1020 N Street,
Room 104 Sacramento, California 95814 916.319.2334 phone 916.319.2188
fax
[email protected]Gene Wong Chief Counsel Senate Judiciary Committee 1020 N Street Bldg.
Room 2187 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5957
[email protected]Larry Doyle Chief Legislative Counsel The State Bar of California 1201
"K" Street, Suite 720 Sacramento, CA 95814-3945 916-442-8018 FAX
916-442-6916 and 978-359-3087
[email protected]Karen Pank Deputy Leg Chair, Office of the Gov Office of Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-4341 (916)327-1009
[email protected]Included below are: 1) The text of the bill that is apparently being
considered by Sen. Burton. 2) Flexcom's response. 3) An open letter
from Peter Walzer, Esq., CFLS, AAML.
1) TEXT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
=============================================================
I. INTENT: It is the intention of the legislature to reaffirm Family
Code __________ as public policy in relocation disputes.
The legislature recognizes the reality of an increasingly mobile
society; the paramount need for continuity and stability of custody
orders, both temporary and permanent, whether pursuant to parties'
stipulation or judicial decree; and the per se detriment to children of
disruption of established patterns of custody and care. The
legislature also recognizes the benefit to children of ongoing contact
with both parents when feasible, acknowledging that such contact may be
maintained following a relocation by either parent through a variety of
methods, including but not limited to physical visitation, e-mails,
written mail, and telephone calls.
II. Amendments to FC 7501:
(a) same.
(b) same, and add: The Supreme Court opinion in In re Marriage of
LaMusga (cite) does not comply with the intent of the legislature and
is therefore abrogated in its entirety.
(c) The custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the
residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or
her to do so. A custodial parent's offer to maintain the existing
amount of timeshare, although on a different schedule appropriate to
the age of the child and distance of the move, shall establish that the
relocation is made in good faith.
(d) The court shall not issue conditional parent seeking to the
noncustodial parent based solely on a relocation or proposed relocation
by the custodial parent.
(e) A noncustodial parent seeking to restrain relocation of the
children or obtain custody because of the relocation has the burden of
showing all of the following:
(i) that the relocation will result in a substantial change of
circumstance unrelated to the move itself,
(ii) that the relocation will result in detriment to the children, and
(iii) that it is essential for the welfare of the child to change
custody to the noncustodial parent.
Disruption of the noncustodial parent and child relationship due to the
inability to maintain frequent and continuing contact does not satisfy
the noncustodial parent's burden of proof for a change of custody or to
restrain the relocation of the children by the noncustodial parent.
(f) The court shall not issue any temporary or ex parte orders of
restraint on the custodial parents' right to relocate with the Children
absent an evidentiary hearing and written findings of fact showing that
the noncustodial parent has satisfied his or her burden of proving a
substantial change of circumstance and detriment to the children by the
relocation. In such finding, the court shall not consider factors
related to the move itself, including but not limited to the effect of
the relocation on the child's relationship with the noncustodial
parent, the distance of the move, the age of the children, the child's
relationship with both parents, or the relationship between the
parents, including their ability to communicate and cooperate.
(g) This state shall apply to all custody orders, whether temporary or
permanent, stipulated or pursuant to judicial decree.
2) FLEXCOM'S RESPONSE June 22, 2004
========================================================================
= TO: Larry Doyle, Chief Legislative Counsel
BILL: Proposed Legislation re La Musga
POSITION: OPPOSE
Dear Larry:
The Executive Committee of the State Bar Family Law Section has
reviewed a draft of legislation expected to be introduced in response
to the recent California Supreme Court case In Re Marriage of La Musga.
The proposed legislation seeks first to totally abrogate the La Musga
ruling. The reason stated is that the La Musga ruling does not reflect
the policy of the State, set forth at FC§7501 (based on legislation
last year purporting to codify the holding of In Re Marriage of
Burgess).
The Family Law Section Executive Committee believes this is incorrect.
A careful reading of the La Musga opinion shows that the Supreme Court
in fact specifically affirmed and upheld the Burgess decision in this
recent case. The Court clarified the Burgess decision as it applied to
the fact in La Musga.
The proposed legislation, as presently drafted, sets forth a list of
provisions that are too extreme and one-sided to address the needs of
all parents, male and female, who are dealing with the issues of a
relocation/move-away. The law should be balanced to protect the rights
of all parties, as well as their children, not just one segment of the
population.
As attorneys who consistently represent not only both mothers and
fathers, but also, when appointed by the Court, the children involved
in such "move-away" cases, we have a strong interest in ensuring a
balanced approach to this issue.
The La Musga opinion sets forth numerous practical and realistic
factors the Court must consider in determining if a child's proposed
relocation is appropriate. One of the provisions in the proposed
legislation prohibits the Court from considering any of these factors –
virtually eliminating anything for the Court to consider in reaching a
decision. Every one of the factors the legislation seeks to eliminate
is relevant to a proper and balanced analysis of the effect of the
proposed move on the child(ren) in question.
The Sponsors of this legislation basically take the position that any
parent who exercises primary care (even 51%) of a child should be
allowed to dictate to the other parent what is best for the child(ren).
Their position is that the primary parent's life choices (e.g.
relocation) are per se best for the child(ren) regardless of any level
of negative impact that choice has on the child(ren).
A legislative policy that realistically gives total control of a
family's child(ren) to the parent who has the majority of parenting
time is a time-bomb. This only forces parents in every
separation/dissolution to litigate fully any initial parenting schedule
that is not a 50-50 time sharing. Just because in many situations an
equal parenting schedule may not be appropriate, at least initially, or
in the child(ren)'s best interest is not a legitimate basis for
virtually denying one parent any rights over his/her child(ren).
The provision prohibiting a Court from making any temporary order
preventing one parent from relocating, pending a Court's determination
on the ultimate issue of the move, is not appropriate. To allow the
relocating parent to establish the child(ren)'s residence elsewhere
while the Court evaluates the issue is extremely prejudicial and
frankly unfair to the child(ren) in the event the Court ultimately
decides against the permanent move for the child(ren), causing
significant distress and disruption of the child(ren)'s life with
repeated moves.
The legislation proposed would make it impossible for a parent to ever
prevent the other parent from relocating their child(ren) regardless of
the harm to the child(ren) from such a move. The Sponsor's fear is
that the decision in La Musga will do just the opposite – make it
impossible for a parent to relocate his/her child(ren). This is not an
accurate reading/interpretation of the La Musga opinion. The Supreme
Court's opinion did not radically change the process/analysis of the
relocation issue by the trial Court. The ultimate burden is still on
the non-moving party.
This proposed legislation actually expands the applicability of §7501
far beyond what was intended in In Re Marriage of Burgess. The number
of families that actually fall with in the "exception" or description
of §7501, as determined in Burgess (where one parent has sole physical
custody by Court order or de facto because of very minimal parenting
time to the other), is really only a small percentage of
divorced/separated families in California.
This legislation expands that description of §7501 cases to impliedly
include all cases where one parent has the majority of parenting time
(e.g. 51%-49%). It then seeks to take the holding/ruling in Burgess,
as to the burden of proof, and broaden it to such a degree that it
cannot be met by any non-moving parent.
If Burgess states the policy and intent of the Legislature – as it
stands, then there is no basis for trying to expand upon the Burgess
holding to the extreme degree this legislation does, nor to try to
abrogate the La Musga ruling that does affirm Burgess with some
reasonable clarification.
We strongly oppose this draft legislation and each provision thereof.
Sincerely,
BARTHOLOMEW, WASZNICKY & MOLINARO LLP
DIANE E. WASZNICKY
DEW/ks
3) PETER WALZER'S OPEN LETTER
=========================================================
To Whom it May Concern:
There is a Burton bill pending that has been drafted to overturn the La
Musga opinion. It is a comprehensive bill that it shifts the burden to
the parent restricting the move away, forecloses using the affect of
the move to show detriment to the child, and provides a presumption
allowing a move and disallowing a best interest test. The author's
office is not sharing the proposed bill and will not disclose when or
where it will show up. We expect that they are looking for a bill that
has already gone through committee and will gut and amend it with this
new bill to shorten the review process. We are looking for help in a
quick response and strong opposition to this bill.
Opposition should be directed to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committees and the Governor's office.
Sincerely,
Peter M. Walzer
Good Lord!!! The language of this proposed bill sure tells you what this politician thinks about Father's Rights!
Yet another reason why I would never want to live in California. LOL Although, at times, I'm not so sure North Carolina is all that great either!
Not being one who is politically active or involved in the political process, how do I go about keeping tabs on my elected officials on matters like this? Just skimming over this additional information made my heart skip a beat. It is so easy for politicians to slip in legislation like this without anybody knowing about it and then next thing you know the legislation is passed and the public is left with a "what the hell??!!" look on their collective faces. I've heard that this tactic is used quite frequently by politicians who don't want their constituents knowing what they're doing until it's too late to do anything about it.
One thing I do is subscribe to the press releases for my State. Of course, there is much they do not tell you. Just keep the eyes and ears open.