Topics

 
 
 
 
» More From The Flint Journal

Editorials & Letters


Child custody
Judges should maintain control of where kids go
FLINT
THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
A group of Michigan fathers suing to force judges to award them joint child custody should back off from their trouble-making proposition.

A lawsuit seeking that intrusive change in family law is pending in federal court, complementing similar litigation in other states. The suit would hamstring judges into granting joint custody as "the norm," unless compelling reasons could be shown why it is not a good idea.

If these activist fathers truly want to be closer to their children, they will achieve it in their personal relations with them, not through judicial intervention. Granted, the dads' stated goal is greater involvement in their children's lives. But the price would be to take away some of the judges' power in awarding custody in all cases, making it harder for judges to focus on what is best for the children.
 
The fact is, joint custody is already frequently awarded; it accounted for 23 percent of custody rulings in Michigan during 2002. Still, dissatisfied fathers complain that mothers are given a prejudicial preference, demonstrated by their gaining physical custody in 64 percent of cases.

But that statistic alone does not indicate judges ruled badly or against the children's best interest. Fathers who feel passed over by the courts when they could have been the better custodial parent need to appeal as individuals, not by overhauling law to weight it more in their favor - at least not without showing that the law as it stands leads to poor decisions.

As any wise judge would advise, when divorced parents cooperate selflessly in the interest of their children, a judicial decree is superfluous anyway.

By contrast, when parents allow egotism and anger to govern their relations with each other and then drag their children into the battle, there isn't much a court can do. Nor will the activist fathers' lawsuit smooth the way for such people, no matter how it is settled.

***

"Children learn what they live"

If your State has not filed, you might want to find out why. Just posting this to inform everyone...

Alabama - order to show cause due Nov 8th, re: state's motion to dismiss
Alaska - unknown current status, need info update
American Samoa - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Arizona - default judgment filed on Monday the 25th
Arkansas - suit just filed recently
California - response due Nov 8th re: motion by state to dismiss for
insuff process/service, hearing Dec 6th
Colorado - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Connecticut - unknown current status, need info update
Delaware - unknown current status, need info update
District of Columbia - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Federated States of Micronesia - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Florida - response due Nov 8th re: motion by state to quash insuff
process/service
Georgia - response due Nov 4th to state's motion to dismiss
Guam - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Hawaii - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Idaho - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Illinois - federal court/clerk playing games in "loosing"
reconsideration filed
Indiana - state granted extension of time to answer
Iowa - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Kansas - unknown current status, need info update
Kentucky - just dismissed, awaiting details to file reconsideration
Louisiana - unknown current status, need info update
Maine - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Marshall Islands - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Maryland - unknown current status after reconsideration filed to
dismissal, need info update
Massachusetts - unknown current status, need info update
Michigan - response due Nov 9th to state's motion to dismiss
Minnesota - response due Nov 1st to state's motion to dismiss, hearing
Dec 3rd
Mississippi - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Missouri - unknown current status, need info update
Montana - unknown current status, need info update
Nebraska - court ordered an amended complaint to be filed
Nevada - unknown current status, need info update
New Hampshire - unknown current status, need info update
New Jersey - unknown current status, need info update
New Mexico - default judgment being filed?
New York - state's motion to dismiss stricken, some plaintiffs papers
pending?, hearing on Nov 4th
North Carolina - suit just filed recently
North Dakota - response due Nov 1st to state's motion to dismiss
Northern Mariana Islands - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Ohio - response due Nov 8th to state's motion to dismiss
Oklahoma - response due Oct 27th to state's motion to dismiss
Oregon - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Palau - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Pennsylvania - dismissed for simply no granting of IFP?? still
awaiting copies of court order(s)
Puerto Rico - have person, suit to be filed soon?
Rhode Island - response due Nov 10th to state's motion to dismiss
South Carolina - response due Nov 4th to state's motion to dismiss
South Dakota - by letter, state refusing to respond, default judgment
to be filed
Tennessee - response due Nov 8th to state's motion to dismiss
Texas - response due Nov 1st to state's motion to dismiss
Utah - unknown current status, need info update
Vermont - unknown current status, need info update
Virgin Islands - no suit filed yet, no contact yet
Virginia - response to state's motion to dismiss just filed
Washington - suit just filed recently
West Virginia - state granted extension of time to answer
Wisconsin - working on options to attack dismissal/denial
Wyoming - no suit filed yet, no contact yet

"Children learn what they live"

The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes
10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father
 
October 27, 2004
 

The promo for this week's His Side--"The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes 10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father"--is below.

I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state).

For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.  His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST.

The archives of last Sunday's His Side--Libertarian Presidential Candidate Defends
Noncustodial Parents' Rights can be heard here.

An important announcement for our New York listeners
Fathers and Families of New York is organizing a show of force at the Matrimonial Commission hearing in Albany, NY, on November 4th. According to FaFNY, these hearings  receive the views of interested individuals and organizations relative to a broad range of issues, including gender bias in the courts, custody of and visitation with minor children, forensic experts and law guardians, child support standards, and false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. It is crucial that the voices of New York state's 2.5 million noncustodial parents be heard.

The hearings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, Concourse Level, Meeting Room 7.  FaFNY is also setting up meetings with key legislators in Albany on the 4th. To be a part of it, contact FaFNY President James Hays at [email protected] or at (518) 383-8202; FaFNY VP Mr. Randall L. Dickinson at [email protected] or at (518) 899-3302 or FaFNY's Dan Romand at [email protected].

Global Home Loans and Finance can help people improve the quality of their lives by repairing their credit, consolidating their debts and getting them a better interest rate. If you are facing heavy debts and need money, call Global Home Loans and Finance at 1 800 514 9175 or visit their website here.

Many of you have asked me how you can help the show expand and progress. One of the ways you can do this is to become a His Side supporter by clicking here. Also, if you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact [email protected]. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers.

As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com


The Lohstroh Case: Alienating Mother Pushes
10 Year-Old Boy to Kill Father

In one of the most shocking murders in recent history, a 10 year old boy caught in his mother's vicious alienation campaign shot his father in the back after his father came to pick him up as part of his post-divorce shared custody arrangement.

Judy Jones, a long time friend of the victim, Dr. Rick Lohstroh, an emergency physician at the University of Texas, has set up a website in his memory. According to Jones:

"[Rick was] a very loving and devoted father. He was a compassionate man who devoted his life to saving the lives of others....he had been through a very contentious divorce with his ex-wife, Deborah Geisler, who had made allegations of physical and sexual abuse. Those abuse allegations had been proven false by several police departments, CPS, and a voluntary lie detector test taken by Dr. Lohstroh.

"On August 27th, 2004...Dr. Lohstroh arrived at the home and his 10 year old son came out of the house with a backpack and got in the back seat of his father's SUV. The boy pulled a .40 caliber hand gun from his backpack and shot Dr. Lohstroh in the back through the driver's seat. The boy reportedly went back to the house to tell his mother that he "couldn't hear." Upon hearing this complaint Deborah sent the child with the gun still in hand back out to his father's car. The boy emptied the rest of the rounds in the gun, then came back inside and handed the gun to Deborah.

"Although Deborah is a registered nurse she did not attempt to render aid to her son's father as he sat dying in his SUV in their front yard. It is believed by many that Deborah's alienating behavior and manipulation was a planned attack that led to the death of Dr. Rick Lohstroh.

"Deborah's own mother and brother testified against her in court, saying that Deborah was a manipulative liar. On many occasions Deborah was issued citations and jailed for domestic violence. Deborah's endless harassment of Dr. Lohstroh was so overwhelming to the children's teachers that the principal of the school had to step in and ask that Deborah not make any more remarks about the children's father."

Jones and Dr. Reena Sommer, Ph.D., who testified in the Lohstroh case, will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, October 31 at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST.  

I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state).

For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.  His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST.

To learn more about the Lohstroh case, Parental Alienation Syndrome and false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse, see:

The website devoted to the memory of Dr. Rick Lohstroh and increasing awareness of PAS--www.HelpStopPAS.com

Dr. Reena Sommer, Ph.D on Parental Alienation Syndrome

A brief explanation of PAS by Dr. Richard Gardner

Documents from //www.HelpStopPAS.com related to the Lohstroh Case, including:

Deborah arrested for spousal abuse and threatening Rick's life.

Deborah made false allegations that Rick sexually abused his children. This is the first police investigation where they cleared him of these charges due to the fact that Deborah is "less than credible" and too many contradictions in her fabricated story. Her own mother also stated that Deborah was lying about the allegations. Testimony from the investigating Webster police officer demonstrates Deborah's inconsistencies.

After Webster PD closes case, Deborah then tries again in another city, Friendswood, TX. Court testimony from the Friendswood police detective again demonstrates Deborah's lack of credibility, and again the case is closed due to "contradictions in statements given."

Rick voluntarily took lie-detector examination to dispute the false allegations.

Deborah being caught in a lie during testimony in open court

Court transcript of audiotaped phone conversation between Deborah and Rick as she tells the children lies about their father.

Deborah's own mother answers questions about her interactions with her daughter, Rick, and the kids, stating that Rick was a "good, loving father and his children certainly loved him."

To learn more about the highly-publicized Bridget Marks False Allegations/Parental Alienation case, see:

Glenn's column Ruling in High-Profile Marks Custody Case: Painful but Correct (Men's News Daily, 9/14/04)(co-authored by family law attorney Jeff Leving)

His Side with Glenn Sacks--Allred vs. Tong--Is Parental Alienation Syndrome aFathers' Rights Hoax? (June 27, 2004)

Glenn's radio commentary--In Defense of Arlene Goldberg (June 13, 2004--both print and audio available)

Also see:

His Side with Glenn Sacks--The Heart of Darkness: Parental Alienation Syndrome (2/8/04) with Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., of Breakthrough Parenting, and family law attorney Jeff Leving

Steven Carlson's (aka the Child Custody Coach) informative page on PAS

Parents Who Have Successfully Fought Parental Alienation Syndrome by Jayne A. Major, Ph.D.

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

Joint custody legislation in the U.S.
Today, a presumption or preference for joint custody exists in at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia.  Joint custody preferences and presumptions typically take one of three forms: a) a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of the child; b) a stated preference by the legislature, without a strict presumption; c) a presumption that joint custody is in the child's best interest where both parents agree.  In some cases the preference or presumption is for joint legal custody, while in others, it is for true shared parenting.  Recently passed legislation has tended to favor stronger presumptions that protect the child's right to both parents.  (See in particular Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Maine, which passed a much stronger statute in 2001.)  
This information is being gathered to assist children's advocates advising legislators in becoming more knowledgable about the provisions and language used in joint custody legislation. Legislation has been introduced in many states to provide a preference or presumption for shared parenting/joint physical or for joint legal custody, or to strengthen existing law. The bills listed below were introduced in recent sessions of their respective legislatures.  This list is incomplete, and will be added to as we obtain information about activities in other states. If you know of legislation in your state, please let us know by email and we'll add it: [email protected]
 
Presumptions and Legislation for Joint Custody and Shared Parenting
Source: American Bar Association and state legislatures
 

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

ALABAMA Statute

PASSED, effective 1997

"It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. "



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

ARIZONA Bill Text

S.B. 1290 - 1998

Amends present law by emphasizing parental responsibility toward children and eliminating concepts of possessory rights that may promote conflict between parents.

9. Specifies that the court shall presume that a child is entitled to substantial contact and residential time with each parent and that each parent shall have substantial decision making authority.



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

ARKANSAS - Statute

PASSED, 1999- presumption in favor of joint custody

§ 9-13-101. Award of custody.

 (a)  In an action for divorce, the award of custody of the children of the marriage shall be made without regard to the sex of
 the parent, but solely in accordance with the welfare and best interests of the children.

 (b)(1)  When in the best interests of a child, custody shall be awarded in such a way so as to assure the frequent and
 continuing contact of the child with both parents.

    (2)  To this effect, in making an order for custody to either parent, the court may consider, among other facts, which
    parent is more likely to allow the child or children frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent.



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

CALIFORNIA

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.



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

COLORADO -  Statutes

PASSED - preference for joint custody

SECTION 10. 14­10­124, Colorado Revised Statutes:

14-10-124. Best interests of child. (1) Legislative declaration. The general assembly finds and declares that it is in the best interest of
all parties to encourage frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children of the marriage after the parents
have separated or dissolved their marriage. In order to effectuate this goal, the general assembly urges parents to share the rights and
responsibilities of child-rearing and to encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children and the parents.



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

CONNECTICUT

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.



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

 
DELAWARE - Statutes

PASSED - preference for joint custody

 § 728. Residence; visitation; sanctions.

(a)  The Court shall determine, whether the parents have joint legal custody of the child or one of them has sole legal custody of the child, with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, consistent with the child's best interests and maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development.



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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.



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

FLORIDA Statute

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

61.13 Custody and support of children; visitation rights; power of court in making orders.

(b)1. The court shall determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. After considering all relevant facts, the father of the child shall be given the same consideration as the mother in determining the primary residence of a child irrespective of the age or sex of the child.

Shared Parenting After Divorce - from the Florida Bar Association



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

GEORGIA - Bill Text

SB 187 - Child Custody

First Reader Summary:  A bill to amend Article 1 of Chapter 9 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to child custody proceedings, so as to provide a presumption of joint legal and physical custody; to provide for exceptions; to provide for a rebuttal of such presumption; to provide for the quantum of evidence required to rebut.



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

IDAHO Statute

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

32-717B.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), of this section, absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children.

(5) There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.



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

 
INDIANA  1999 Bill Text

HOUSE BILL No. 1026

 Synopsis: Joint custody. Requires a court to consider whether joint legal or physical custody, or both, would be in the best
interests of the child whenever the court determines child custody in dissolution of marriage cases. Requires the court to
consider certain relevant factors when making the joint custody determination. Requires the court to order joint legal or physical
custody, or both, whenever the court finds that the award would be in the best interests of the child. (Under current law, it is
optional whether a court considers an award of joint custody.)



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

 
IOWAStatute

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

598.41 Custody of children.

1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent.

2. b. If the court does not grant joint custody under this subsection, the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to the factors in subsection 3, that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.



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

KANSAS - Presumptive Shared Parenting

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

Current Kansas Statute 60-1610

Chapter 60.--PROCEDURE, CIVIL

Article 16.--DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE

(4) Types of custodial arrangements. Subject to the provisions of this article, the court may make any order relating to custodial arrangements which is in the best interests of the child. The order shall include, but not be limited to, one of the following, in the order of preference:

(A) Joint custody. The court may place the custody of a child with both parties on a shared or joint-custody basis. In that event, the parties shall have equal rights to make decisions in the best interests of the child under their custody. When a child is placed in the joint custody of the child's parents, the court may further determine that the residency of the child shall be divided either in an equal manner with regard to time of residency or on the basis of a primary residency arrangement for the child. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit a plan for implementation of a joint custody order upon finding that both parents are suitable parents or the parents, acting individually or in concert, may submit a custody implementation plan to the court prior to issuance of a custody decree. If the court does not order joint custody, it shall include in the record the specific findings of fact upon which the order for custody other than joint custody is based.

NEW:

Kansas Legislative Services See bills #629, 2816, 2862.

NOTE: Kansas already has a preference for joint custody (see below); these bills are intended to strengthen the protection of a child's right to both parents.

State of Kansas Bill # 629

"The legislature finds it is in the best interest of a minor child to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the ongoing involvement of both parents in the life of the minor child. The legislature further finds that parents should maintain continued communications to make as many joint decisions in performing such parenting functions as are necessary for the care and healthy development of the minor child"



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

KENTUCKY  Bill Text

SB 290

"Creates new sections of KRS Chapter 403 to provide for the equal sharing of parenting and custody in the best interest of the child; Creates new sections of KRS Chapter 403 which states a presumption that shared parental custody is in the best interest of the child and then creates a preferential list for who should receive parental custody; creates a crime called parental interference and makes it a Class D felony. "



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

LOUISIANA

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.



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


MAINE  Bill Text
PASSED, 2001

On May 31, 2001 the governor of Maine signed LD 1405, which will be effective 09/21/01 requiring a "presumption of joint custody".

SUMMARY.  This bill establishes the policy that parents should be awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities unless the court finds that the
joint responsibility would not be in the child's best interest. The court must provide that the parents equally share the responsibility for
providing their child's residential care, unless the court makes a finding that the equal sharing is not in the child's best interest. The
parents may agree to a sharing of parental rights and responsibilities, including the provision of residential care, which the court must accept
or provide written reasons why the agreement is not in the child's best interest.



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

MARYLAND- Bill Text

HB 1217 -Joint Legal Custody and Equal Parenting Time - Preference



Excerpt:
"(A)  IN AN INITIAL CHILD USTODY PROCEEDING, WHETHER PENDENTE LITE OR PERMANENT, INVOLVING THE PARENTS OF A CHILD, THE COURT SHALL  FIRST CONSIDER AN ORDER THAT AWARDS:
(I)                JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENTS; AND


(II)                PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD FOR APPROXIMATELY EQUAL PERIODS OF TIME FOR EACH PARENT."

<>



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

MICHIGAN

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.



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

MINNESOTA

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint legal custody but not physical custody



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

MISSISSIPPI

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.

NEW: Bill Text

Senate Bill 2047

Code Section: A 093-0005-0024

Title: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 93-5-24, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REQUIRE THE COURT, IN AWARDING CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, TO CONSIDER JOINT PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY AS A PRIORITY AND TO DIRECT THE COURT TO DISREGARD THE PARENT'S GENDER IN AWARDING CUSTODY; TO REQUIRE PARENTS TO SUBMIT AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR ORDERS OF JOINT CUSTODY; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.



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

MISSOURI

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

NEW: Bill Text

HB 771 -- Child Custody and Child Support

The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that joint legal and physical custody is in the child's best interests and should be awarded in child custody cases. Joint legal custody means that parents share in making major decisions relating to the welfare of their child.  The bill also requires judges who do not award joint legal and physical custody to consider an award of joint legal and sole physical custody before awarding either party sole custody of the child. Also, if the judge awards sole custody, then the judge is required to award the non-custodial parent appropriate and substantial temporary custody.



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

MONTANA

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.



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

 
NEW JERSEY

NEW BILL - Full Bill Text

Excerpts:

1.  The Legislature finds and declares that:
 a.  It is the intent of the Legislature through the adoption of this act to  promote the public policy of this State to endorse the principle that children have frequent and continuing physical time with their parents when the parents live separately or after parental separation ordissolution of marriage. ...
...

2. There shall be a presumption in court determinations of childcustody that joint physical custody and shared physical custody responsibility shall be ordered if it is in the best interests of the child. Upon request of one or both parents for joint physical custody, the court shall so order unless it finds compelling reasons to not award joint physical custody.  If joint physical custody is not ordered, the court's order shall include findings why joint physical custody is not in the best interests of the child.



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

 
NEVADA Bill Text

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.

NRS 125.460 State policy. The legislature declares that it is the policy of this state:

1. To ensure that minor children have frequent associations and a continuing relationship with both parents after the parents have become separated or have dissolved their marriage; and

2. To encourage such parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing.



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

NEW HAMPSHIRE

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.



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

NEW MEXICO

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.



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

NEW YORK
Bill Text - A00182 Establishes the presumption in matrimonial proceedings of awarding shared parenting of   minor children - 1999
The provisions of this
   11  act establish a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that  shared
   12  parenting is in the best interests of minor children.



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

 
A. 3950--B Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting. - 1998

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets ( ) is old law to be omitted. LBD05074-08-8 A. 3950--B

(a) Where a minor child is residing within this state, either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and on the return thereof, the court, on due consideration, (may) SHALL award the natural guardianship, charge and custody of such child to (either parent) BOTH PARENTS, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION THAT SUCH SHARED PARENTING WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO SUCH CHILD, for such time, under such regulations and restrictions, and with such provisions and directions, as the case may require, and may at any time thereafter vacate or modify such order. (In all cases there shall be no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent, but the) THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT SUCH SHARED PARENTING WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO SUCH CHILD SHALL BE UPON THE PARENT REQUESTING SOLE CUSTODY.



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

OHIO  Statute

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

(c) Whenever possible, the court shall require that a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section ensure the opportunity for both parents to have frequent and continuing contact with the child, unless frequent and continuing contact with any parent would not be in the best interest of the child.



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

 
OKLAHOMA

PASSED, 1999 - presumption in favor of joint custody.

Statutes as Section 110.1 of Title 43, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.  To effectuate this policy, if requested by a parent, the court shall provide substantially equal access to the minor children to both parents at a temporary order hearing, unless the court finds that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child.  The burden of proof that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child shall be upon the parent requesting sole custody.



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

 
OREGONStatute

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody.

107.105 Provisions of decree. (1) Whenever the court grants a decree of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, it has power further to decree as follows:

(a) For the future care and custody, by one party or jointly, of all minor children of the parties born, adopted or conceived during the marriage, and for minor children born to the parties prior to the marriage, as the court may deem just and proper pursuant to ORS 107.137. The court may hold a hearing to decide the custody issue prior to any other issues. When appropriate, the court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children.

(b) For parenting time rights of the parent not having custody of such children, and for visitation rights of grandparents pursuant to a petition filed under ORS 109.121. When a parenting plan has been developed as required by ORS 107.102, the court shall review the parenting plan and, if approved, incorporate the parenting plan into the court's final order. When incorporated into a final order, the parenting plan is determinative of parenting time rights. If the parents have been unable to develop a parenting plan or if either of the parents requests the court to develop a detailed parenting plan, the court shall develop the parenting plan in the best interest of the child, ensuring the noncustodial parent sufficient access to the child to provide for appropriate quality parenting time and assuring the safety of the parties, if implicated. The court may deny parenting time to the noncustodial parent under this subsection only if the court finds that parenting time would endanger the health or safety of the child. The court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage, where practicable, joint responsibility for the welfare of such children and extensive contact between the minor children of the divided marriage and the parties.



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

PENNSYLVANIABill Text

HB 1723 - 1998

"'Joint custody'. Joint legal and physical custody."

"Award of custody, partial custody or visitation. General rule.An order for joint custody shall be awarded by the court unless the court finds that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child. There shall. be a rebuttable presumption that an award of joint custody is in the best interest of the child. The court state on the record the reason for an award other than an award of joint custody."



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

SOUTH CAROLINA - Bill Text

- GB 3981  TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1550 SO AS TO PROVIDE  THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN RESOLVING CHILD CUSTODY AND  VISITATION DISPUTES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ARE SERVED WHEN THE CHILD'S  RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH PARENT IS EQUALLY PROMOTED AND ENCOURAGED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MUST STRIVE TO EQUALIZE EACH PARENT'S TIME WITH AND OPPORTUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CHILD'S LIFE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT JOINT CUSTODY IS NOT REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION NOR MAY VISITATION AWARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION BE CONSTRUED AS JOINT CUSTODY.



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

TENNESSEE - Statute

PASSED Effective May 15, 1996- presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.

36-6-101. Decree for custody and support of child (a)

(2) Except as provided in the following sentence, neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody or sole custody is established, but the court shall have the widest discretion to order a custody arrangement that is in the best interest of the child. Unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where the parents have agreed to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child. For the purpose of assisting the court in making a determination whether an award of joint custody is appropriate, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted. The burden of proof necessary to modify an order of joint custody at a subsequent proceeding shall be by a preponderance of the evidence

.



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

TEXAS - Statute

PASSED, effective 1995

CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 153.001. Public Policy.

"(a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;"

SUBCHAPTER C. PARENT APPOINTED AS SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR

Sec. 153.131. Presumption That Parent to be Appointed Managing Conservator.

"(b) It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child."



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

VERMONT

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree



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

VIRGINIA Bill Text

HB 1239

" B. In determining parenting arrangements , the court shall give primary consideration to the needs of the child. The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents and shall presume that both parents shall share in the responsibilities of rearing their children."



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

WASHINGTON

PASSED - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.

NEW: Bill Text

HOUSE BILL 2407

(+ NEW SECTION. +) Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:

(1) There shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of minor children unless:
(a) The parents have agreed to an award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent; or
(b) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children.
(2) A parent alleging that shared parental responsibility would be  detrimental to the child or children shall have the burden of establishing the allegation.



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

 
WEST VIRGINIA  1999 Bill Text

PASSED, 1999 - presumption in favor of joint custody.

"The child's best interests are defined as: stability; planning and agreement about custodial arrangements and upbringing; continuing and meaningful contact between the child and each parent; assuring that the child is in a healthful and secure environment; and expeditious decision making process regarding arrangements for the child's care and control."

"If each of the child's legal parents has been exercising a reasonable share of parenting functions for the child, the court shall presume that an allocation of decision-making responsibility to both parents jointly is in the child's best interests."



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

 
WISCONSIN 1999 Bill Text   Sections 767.23-24 (pages 628-631)

PASSED, 1999 - presumption in favor of joint custody.

767.24 (2) (am) "The court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child."

767.24 (4) (a) "The court shall set a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and accomodations for different households".



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

More information on joint custody laws can be found at the American Bar Association (reasonably, but not completely, up to date) - State Laws Regarding Joint Custody



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


"Children learn what they live"

Went back to Dr. Phil website and the one good thing that comes out of this. Dr. Phil has some good advice on helping the kids get thru. Sometimes just a reminder helps put things in prespective, even when we all try to keep the children in the forefront.

Hopefully, it will help parents who are about to embark on a custody battle.

"Children Learn What They Live"

After viewing how many are now signed up here, I cannot believe that only a few, are willing to take a few minutes to write a short letter.

Judge Goldberg has rendered a decision that could change things for so many of us. She needs to know the stories of non-custodials and what they deal with.

This is a chance for all of us to show support. Quit crying and whining and do something positive.

We all saw the positive results of the 'Boys are Stupid' campaign.

Look what happened in Iowa.

It's called team work and putting our efforts into the good of all children to be active with both parents.

I know your computers are not broke, I know you can type. If I have to write a hundred letters a day to have a more active part in my sons life, I will write forever.

That is why God invented 'copy and paste'

There are around 1600 members here. If each person wrote and asked a family member or friend to also write. That is well over 3000 letters. It takes less then two minutes.

Help make a difference, if this is reversed due to pressure from oposing groups, don't cry to me.

ENOUGH SAID.....

P.S. GEORGIE, if I have made any spelling errors, you can send me a PM

My trial begins in a few weeks and the depositions are underway.

Who pays for the professionals who are on the list to come in and be deposed?

Been a long time since I posted here. Many new folks here and I hope my experience can help others. Very long, hard fight. Did not see a light in the tunnel until the other day. My case was very high conflict. Don't even know how I made it thru.

Wanted to give the oldtimers an update on my fight. Our son won. Had a great attorney, a fair Judge. In fact, it was the Judge who had the greatest impact on the final results. She was terrific. If anyone knows a site were I can post a good Judge, I would like to add her name. We all hear too often of bad judges, so this is refreshing.

Ended this having a true shared custody agreement. 50% time share, joint legal and physical custody. Every aspect of our sons life, will now be shared.

Best advice I can give anyone here, is NEVER give up, ever. Stay focused on the child/children.  I decided from the beginning to take the high road. Kept the focus on the best interests for our son. Did alot of reading in the archives here, read thru posts made by others and what worked for them. Became knowlegeable on my state statues. Knowledge is key.

DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, stay organized with your paperwork, get a lawyer knowledgable in Family Law. My attorney kept me from getting eaten by the wolves, ex got very little financial settlement, about 3%. Attorney had the lum settlement go to our son's college education, which pleased me it worked out for our sons benefit. I saved my property and other investments.

There is a tremendious support system at SPARC, from the folks who post what has worked for them, Socreateaser is worth his weight in gold, the many, many people who have helped me in so many ways over the years, can't begin to name them all, Kitty C, Joni, Bolivar just to name a few.

I know this is far from over, ex will continue her pattern. Just sitting back biding my time for now. Next time, I have no doubts, I will have full custody. But in my heart, shared custody is best for our son. Judge is just giving her one last chance to work with me. I can live with shared. Just hoping ex will grown up and co-parent.


"Children learn what they live"

.

.  
 
   
 
 

 
  Wednesday, March 8, 2006  
 

 
Shared Parenting Showdown in New York
 
   
 
New York's Shared Parenting Bill has reached a critical point and we want to help give the bill a strong push forward.

New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and
 

Email this page
 
fatherhood. Family law has been in the spotlight there, as the New York Matrimonial Commission has held hearings on family law across the state. The Commission recently recommended no-fault divorce for New York.

A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill, is sponsored by the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, the New York affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.


What the Bill Would Do

Today joint custody is rare in New York and sole custody for mothers is the norm. A330 would "require the court to award custody to both parents in the absence of allegations that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child." It would place the burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental where it should be--on the parent requesting sole custody.

The bill also establishes an order of preference for custody, the top preference being joint custody. If the court decides against joint custody, it must state its reasons.


How to Take Action

The bill is slated to be heard by the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee on March 28. Three dozen New York State Assemblypersons have signed on to the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, giving the bill momentum. This momentum will be lost if the bill dies in committee. That's why I want all of you to write to the committee members with your support for this bill by clicking here.

According to FAFNY, letters and calls from anywhere in the country help because they give the bill attention and show the broad national support for shared parenting. To call the Committee members also, click here.

Like California, New York is a battleground state for family law because what happens there has a great impact on the family law of other states. A victory on A330 would reverberate across the country, aiding in ways large or small every child of divorce.

We want letters from all of you, no matter what state you live in. To write a letter, click here. To call the Committee members also, click here.

Hearing from so many of you over the past several years, it would be hard to put into words the amount of pain and misery caused by our current family law system and its sole custody, win/lose orientation. Now is your chance to help change the system.


We Can Win

The battle for A330 won't be easy but you have helped win great victories in the past and can do so here, too. For example, in 2004 we mobilized over 2,000 people to defeat a California bill which would have given custodial parents almost unlimited right to move children out of noncustodial parents' lives.

Last year we helped the California Alliance for Families and Children push through SB 1082, a bill to help noncustodial parents who serve in the Armed Forces.

We have had numerous other successes (click here to learn more). Again, I want all of you to participate by clicking here.


How A330/Shared Parenting Helps Kids

Numerous studies show that shared parenting is what's best for kids. To cite one, Robert Bauserman, Ph.D, conducted a meta-analysis of 33 studies between 1982 to 1999 that examined 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children. Bauserman found that "Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavior and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements."


Who Opposes A330?

A330 is opposed by the usual suspects--feminists and divorce attorneys. The New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women and the National Coalition for Family Justice oppose A330 and instead advocate de facto automatic sole custody privileges for mothers under the pretense that it is what's best for children. In reality, what's best for children of divorce is that we protect their loving bonds with the two most important people in their lives--their moms and dads. The New York State Matrimonial Bar Association has also expressed opposition to the bill, though they have not yet formally opposed it.

Some of you may have noticed a few weeks ago that NY NOW president Marcia Pappas wrote a column on family law in the New York Times in which she cited husbands who wanted divorces because dad's "girlfriend is pregnant." This is typical of the contempt and disregard which feminists show for divorced dads--are we going to allow them to make our family law?

Again, to participate, click here.

 
 
   
Write New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee

Complete and send the form below to write to the following members of
New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee.

William Scarborough, Chair
Carmen E. Arroyo
Michael Benjamin
Adam Bradley
Karim Camara
Barbara M. Clark
Ruben Diaz Jr.
Joseph A. Errigo
 Deborah J. Glick
Carl E. Heastie
Vincent Ignizio
Amy Paulin
Naomi Rivera
Annette Robinson
Teresa R. Sayward
Michele R. Titus
 

Your Email Address:

RE: A330
Position: Support
 
Dear Assembly Children & Families Committee Member:
 
I am writing to urge you to pass A330, which you will be considering this month.
 
I support A330 and shared custody because it protects children's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents after divorce. Research clearly establishes that shared custody creates better outcomes for children emotionally, educationally, and financially.
 
New York children of divorce often see one of the two people they love most in the world pushed to the margins of their lives. A330 protects the critical bonds children share with their parents by creating a presumption that both parents will be allowed to play a meaningful role in their children's lives after divorce.

Sincerely,

Please type your full name here to act as your signature

Your Phone:
Including your phone number will help authenticate your letter. Phone numbers are not collected or shared with any third party.


 
 
 

 

Call New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee
Use the phone numbers below to contact the following members of New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee.

Committee Member District Office Albany Office
William Scarborough, Chair 718-657-5312
 518-455-4451
Carmen E. Arroyo 718-292-2901 518-455-5402
Michael Benjamin 718-588-3119 518-455-5272
Adam Bradley 914-686-7335 518-455-5397
Karim Camara 718-756-1776 518-455-5262
Barbara M. Clark 718-479-2333 518-455-4711
Ruben Diaz Jr. 718-893-0202 518-455-5514
Joseph A. Errigo 585-334-5210 518-455-5662
Deborah J. Glick 212-674-5153 518-455-4841
Carl E. Heastie 718-654-6539 518-455-4800
Vincent Ignizio 718-967-5194 518-455-4495
Amy Paulin 914-723-1115 518-455-5585
Naomi Rivera 718-409-0109 518-455-5844
Annette Robinson
 718-399-7630 518-455-5474
Teresa R. Sayward 518-873-3803
or
518-792-4546 518-455-5565
Michele R. Titus 718-327-1845 518-455-5668

 
 

Sign-up for the Glenn Sacks E-Newsletter and receive a copy of his latest columns, as well as information regarding upcoming events such as radio and/or television appearances.
This is the best way to keep up-to-date with the issues Glenn discusses.
    Email Address
 
 

 
 
 

Home  |  Legal  |  Contact     •     email: [email protected]


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

Copyright © 2001 - 2006.  Sacks Media Group, LLC
All Rights Reserved.

 
 
 
 

"Children learn what they live"

Everyone here should take one minute and do a google search on Family Reform in their State. The M.O.M. Squad is active in mine.

 The M.O.M. Squad capers


Carey Roberts
Carey Roberts
February 22, 2006


All Points Bulletin: M.O.M.s are on the loose. They're armed and dangerous. Be forewarned, M.O.M.s — Mothers Opposed to Men — wield a formidable array of fake statistics, sob stories, and old-fashioned propaganda.

I admit, sometimes I feel a bit silly trying to answer their preposterous charges. But since the M.O.M.s keep saying this stuff, maybe it's time to put the kibosh on the whole thing. So here goes:

First, the M.O.M. Squad claims that divorcing fathers gain child custody 70% of the time, citing Phyllis Chesler's 1986 book, Mothers on Trial. But Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young calls Chesler's claim a contender for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame. [//www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpadec10_cathy_young.html]

Fact: Fathers win child custody only 15% of the time.

Second, the M.O.M.s say that male violence against women is all-pervasive. Here's feminist icon Catherine MacKinnon at her level-headed best: "Just like terrorist attacks, acts of violence against women are carefully planned, targeted at civilians, and driven by ideology."

Fact: Women are just as likely as men to assault their partners. [//www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm] If you don't want to look up the research, just ask Indianapolis Colts cornerback Nick Harper, whose wife Daniell spent a couple days in the slammer last month after stabbing him with a kitchen knife.

Third, the M.O.M.s claim fathers commonly abuse their children. Like the child custody canard, that statement is the exact opposite of the truth.

Fact: Women represent the majority of child abusers. According to the federal Administration for Children and Families, "In 2003, 58.2% of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were females and 41.8% were males." [http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70] The ACF also reveals that in 30% of child fatalities, the perpetrator is the mother is acting alone, while in 18% of cases, it's the father acting alone. [//www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure4_2.htm]

Are you ready for the latest bombshell?

This one concerns fathers who find they must go to court in an often futile effort to gain joint custody of their children. This whopper made its way into the recent PBS program, Breaking the Silence: "Numerous studies have confirmed that approximately 75% [of fathers seeking custody] involve a history of violence."

Fact: This defamatory statement is akin to the claim that Jews were wrecking the German economy. Look beyond the histrionics of the PBS claim and you can't help but notice that "The references cited by the film's supporters in most cases are a round-robin of assertions, in which the same pool of authors repeatedly cites each other's opinions, without supporting data," as one critic put it. [//www.fathersandfamilies.org/NEWS/BTSResearchCritiqueWithComments.pdf]

Broadcast of Breaking the Silence this past October shifted the M.O.M.'s campaign into high gear. But their agitprop suffered a setback when the program drew flack from thousands of PBS viewers and producer Dominique Lasseur was grounded by PBS ombudsman Michael Getler. [//www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2005/12/introduction_and_breaking_the_silence.html]

The Mothers Opposed to Men used to hang out at a website known as the Mothers' Research and Resource Center, but then columnist Wendy McElroy outed them. [//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177893,00.html] Within days they yanked the incriminating evidence — but not before a copy was made. [//www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/1207archived.html]

So why on earth are the M.O.M.s engaged in this anti-family campaign?

Twenty years ago, divorcing mothers were the beneficiaries of a legal system that reflexively awarded them child custody. But fathers said that wasn't fair, that gender equality is supposed to apply to men, too. Plus, research shows kids with hands-on fathers do far better in school and are less likely to get into trouble with the law — think of dads as the social equivalent of Wonder Bread.

So in many states fathers pushed for laws that say child custody should be shared between dad and mom, assuming both parents are fit. That common-sense approach is called a legal presumption of joint custody.

Most would say that arrangement is good for all parties: kids, mom, and dad. And it doesn't cost the taxpayer a flat dime. But the M.O.M.s were not pleased, because they view joint custody as a capitulation to the dreaded patriarchy.

So now they're going around the country and meeting behind closed doors with judges and lawmakers, spreading their anti-father calumnies. Their aim is to stampede them into passing laws based on the premise that dads are dangerous, so we'd be better off if they were all locked up somewhere.

Look out for the M.O.M. Squad, coming to a legislature near you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060222


"Children learn what they live"

 


Courts hit parents with triple whammy
By Phyllis Schlafly

Dec 19, 2005

Federal judges have just hit parents with a triple whammy. Two appellate courts held that parents have no right to stop offensive, privacy-invading interrogation of their own children in public schools. In a third case, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that it is not going to do anything to protect parental rights concerning schools.

It has become clear that many courts have adopted the notion that a village - in these cases, schools - should raise children. Judges prefer to side with schools and against parents.

When a New Jersey mother was horrified to learn that her daughter and classmates had been asked how many times they had tried to kill themselves, she filed suit to protect the rights of parents and pupils. She won on the first appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in C.N. v. Ridgewood Board of Education, but the school was relentless in litigation to assert its primary authority and the court finally ruled in favor of the school.

At issue was a 156-question survey called "Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors," which probed students about their personal lives and activities. The survey included questions about sex, drugs, suicide, incriminating behavior, spirituality, tolerance and other personal matters.

Questions 92-93 in this survey given to Ridgewood children asked "how many times" they "had used cocaine" in their lives, or during the last 12 months, and the answer choices were 0, 1, 2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-19, 20-39, and 40+. This gave students the false impression that casual use of cocaine is common and acceptable.

Misleading questions can have a powerful effect. Our legal system recognizes this by providing dozens of reasons for lawyers to object to questions in court in order to protect their witnesses from having to answer improper questions.

Children lack the maturity to tell the difference between questions they should or should not answer. Children are trained in school that they must answer questions or face discipline or a poor grade.

Ask an adult when he stopped beating his wife and expect to be told to get lost. Ask a child in the classroom how often he takes drugs or has sex, and the child will think he ought to answer.

But judges who routinely uphold lawyers' objections to improper questions in court think it is OK to ask offensive questions of children in school. In the Ridgewood decision, the court agreed with the parents that the students' participation in the survey might have been mandatory, and conceded that the leading questions could be suggestive to students, but nevertheless ruled that parents' and pupils' rights were not violated.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went further, marking the school door as the line where parents' rights end and the "village" takes over. In Fields v. Palmdale School District in November, the judges ruled that the right of parents "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

Just last term, the U.S. Supreme Court devoted time and energy to a silly lawsuit over the replacement of a male teacher as coach of a girls basketball team. When a teacher has a complaint, the Supreme Court springs to attention; but when a parent has a complaint about indoctrination of his or her child, the high court doesn't even want to hear about it.

In the same 30 days as the Ridgewood and Palmdale cases, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review another parental rights case in Crowley v. McKinney. The high court is spending its time this term on a slew of cases about prisoners' rights (even about the alleged right of prisoners to read pornographic magazines) rather than hear a single case about parents' rights to raise their children.

In Crowley v. McKinney, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the parent, saying that the school has a constitutional right of "the autonomy of educational institutions." The parent had appealed to the Supreme Court to recognize the "settled law" of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which in 1925 recognized the constitutional right of parents to control the education of their own children.

Even though recognizing the Supreme Court's holding in Pierce that "Oregon's project of forcing all children to attend public schools implied a hostility to private education that had no footing in American traditions or educational policy," the 7th Circuit ignored its application to the current case. Does forcing children to answer questions about sex, drugs and suicide have a "footing in American traditions"? Of course not.

It hasn't grabbed the attention of the Supreme Court that the 3rd, 7th and 9th circuit courts have ignored the settled law of Pierce. You can bet the high court would take a case that requires testing schoolchildren for use of illegal drugs, yet the Supreme Court refuses to face the issue of requiring schoolchildren to participate in classroom surveys that suggests doing drugs is normal behavior.

Teachers are not required to answer these intrusive questions, so why are children? Evidently, parents are the only ones who do not benefit from equal protection of the law.


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

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2005/12/19/179728.html



"Children learn what they live"

RADAR ALERT:

Tell PBS Stations that PBS' Whitewash Doesn't Mean Breaking the Silence is Unbiased

A few days before Christmas, PBS finally issued their statement on Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories. (See http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20051221_breakingthesilence.html) PBS' statement gives their affiliated stations a green light to continue airing this biased program.

In the statement, PBS says, "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists." To make this assertion, they had to completely ignore their own ombudsman's opinion that "this particular program had almost no balance" and the CPB ombudsman's opinion that the producers' stated intention to exclude any alternative view "amounts to a plea of guilty to violating the fairness and balance standards of PBS". (See http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2005/12/introduction_and_breaking_the_silence.html and http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051219bode.html)

PBS also claims that the producers' research "was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program," in spite of their having received a detailed analysis, which shows that the research cited by the program's creators does not support the program's message (http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/Publications/BTS/BTSResearchCritiqueWithComments.pdf) One has to wonder if they even bothered to read the analysis, or if they decided early on to support the producers' research no matter what.

PBS' implicit message to their affiliates is that there's nothing wrong with them broadcasting this biased program. So this week we're asking you to contact your local PBS affiliate with the message:

The PBS Ombudsman has described Breaking the Silence as "a one-sided, advocacy program". The CPB Ombudsman has called the producers guilty of violating the fairness and balance standards of PBS. Affiliates that want to maintain the public's trust in their commitment to PBS' own fairness and balance standards should refrain from rebroadcasting Breaking the Silence.

To find your local PBS affiliate:

Go to http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html and enter your zip code, or
Look in your local telephone directory

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

Date of RADAR Release: January 2, 2006

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a network of concerned men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner: http://www.mediaradar.org.


"Children learn what they live"

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/051213

PBS propaganda piece


Carey Roberts
Carey Roberts
December 13, 2005


I've never heard of a Public Broadcasting Service documentary being slammed by two ombudsmen in the space of one week. But that's exactly what happened to PBS' ill-fated program, Breaking the Silence.

The program, billed as an exposé of divorce courts, said that custody of abused children is often awarded to the abusing parent. Government reports reveal that mothers are more likely than dads to abuse and neglect their children [http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70], and that mothers in fact are awarded child custody about 85% of the time — so the documentary producers did have a point.

But the ombudsmen peered behind the green velvet curtain and said this time around, the Great Wizard was trying to pull a fast one.

First Ken Bode, ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came out on November 29 with a report that charged the Breaking the Silence claims were "slanted" against fathers, "incendiary," and plain "wrong." [//www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051129bode.html]

That would be bad enough if we were talking about a Leftist love-in like NOW with Bill Moyers. But in this case we're talking about a factual documentary.

Then three days later Michael Getler, ombudsman at the Public Broadcasting Service, dropped the second bombshell, noting "there was no recognition of opposing views," and concluded the show was an "advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation." [//www.pbs.org/ombudsman]

But the problem with Breaking the Silence is not just flawed and unethical journalism. Bode's greater concern was the fact that the program "has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law."

What was Mr. Bode talking about?

Turns out a rogue outfit called the Mother's Research and Reference Center [//www.mrrc.info] was in cahoots with PBS insiders and got advance copies of the program.

Then the MRRC organized demonstrations and private screenings of the documentary for state legislators, judges, and local activists. The idea was to convince them to pass laws to make it almost impossible for dads to get even shared custody of their kids after divorce.

At KVPT in Fresno, abuse professionals were made available to speak with distraught viewers. But the counselors probably didn't have much to say about all those female teachers who have been making headlines for jumping in bed with their male teenage students. Or the mother who chopped off the leg of her 20-month-old son last week. [http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17507324-421,00.html]

Remember, the party line says fathers, not mothers, are the child abusers.

And in Alaska, PBS affiliate KAKM, forgetting it was a tax-exempt organization, promised they would provide free publicity for the activists. According to the local organizer, "The local PBS station has said they will help us advertise and promote our event because we will then in turn promote viewing of their screening date on 10/20."

That tidbit came to light last Tuesday, courtesy of Fox News columnist Wendy McEloy [//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177893,00.html], who invited readers to see the smoking gun for themselves at //www.mrrc.info/Articles/DemonstrationInfo.html

But the Mother's Research and Reference Center didn't appreciate all the publicity, so within days they yanked the incriminating paragraph. And a few days later, all 17 pages that documented MRRC's mischief-making around the country evaporated in cyber-space.

Well, not exactly. Because someone beat them to the punch and made a mirror of the original web page, which can be seen at //www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/1207archived.html.

Sorry girls, you've just been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

The rad-fems have devised a remarkable plan for family destablization: fabricate a bizarre accusation, get the media to believe it, whip the populace into a frenzy, and then pressure chivalrous legislators to pass laws that do away with fathers.

In the 1980s, it was the myth of the deadbeat dad who callously abandons his family. Now we have a draconian (and costly) child support system that tosses destitute dads in jail when they fall behind on their payments. [//www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.html]

In the 1990s, it was the ersatz epidemic of men who assault and batter their wives. Thanks to that canard, we have the billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act that makes divorce easy, profitable, and fun. [//www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0720roberts.html] ersatz

And now we have a bogus documentary that smears fathers as child abusers, with the aim of keeping dads out of their children's lives after divorce.

That's the stuff of old-fashioned, in-your-face, Soviet-style propaganda. That's what PBS did on October 20.

So next time you want to get good, solid reporting about a controversial topic, you might do better by picking up a copy of the National Enquirer in the check-out line.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2005 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/051213




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


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Alan Keyes, RenewAmerica, or its affiliates.


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


Previous articles by Carey Roberts:
The truth about the World Health Organization and AIDS


Fem-think and the civil rights of men


Requiem for the leftist welfare utopia


UN Resolution 1325: The world body goes on a loony streak


Purveyors of deceit: Why PBS must yank 'Breaking the Silence'


Jim Crow days for men


The Laura Bush we don't know


Click here for more articles

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.pepintexas.org/shows/20051211/Phyllis_Schlafly.mp3

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/fathers/

"Children learn what they live"

Good afternoon,
This is a VAWA Alert from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence!
Take their advice and make your opinion known but PLEASE read these comments first and then decide if VAWA should remain a weapon against families or if we should take a new direction with DV?!

Please take their advice and contact the list below... however  ask them NOT to pass VAWA unless the following questions are considered and then provisions placed within a "Violence Against Victims Act" that will address the needs and protection of ALL victims of Domestic Violence regardless of gender,age or lifestyle!
ALL of our family members deserve no less than our Government's willingness to make sure that discrimination is not financed with our tax dollars!

Where are the provisions for the safety and well being of the men who are evicted due to false restraining orders being placed against them, even though not only may the accusations be false but in fact the men may often be the actual victim of domestic violence? Where are the protections for the men who may be "evicted" by their abusive spouse or partner, are out in the street and the VAWA funded domestic violence organizations refuse to help them because VAWA only funds shelters and services for women!? Men who are victims of domestic violence can't even turn to the DV shelters that women can go to because they are not covered under the Violence Against WOMEN Act. Men who are false accused of DV and are served a restraining order even though they have not harmed anyone are evicted from their homes with NO NOTICE and often end up homeless and possibly losing jobs with no assistance available to them even when their accuser recants and drops the restraining order. VAWA can not be passed until there are provisions in it for ALL victims!
Many VAWA funded organizations are currently seeking more funding to help them protect and shelter a victim's pets, "animal domestic violence victims", while most continue to exclude male children of certain ages and male victims from their protective and supportive efforts!

VAWA MUST undergo serious changes including it's name to reflect the fact that families and communities consist of both men and women so services and support need to be equally available and funded. Children are both male and female and our girls should be protected but not more or better than our boys.

So let's take the advice of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and contact the members of the House Financial Committee and other key people BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Tell them to vote against VAWA and vote for an Anti-Domestic Violence Act that will free us from the discriminatory funding and practices that almost half of the victims of domestic violence have to survive in spite of!

Please do this now before time runs out and VAWA is passed without inclusive changes.  
The time do do the right thing is here and men and women who operate with common sense know that it is the right thing to do!
Our daughters and our sons will thank us for the courage to change the mistakes that have been made regarding abusive behaviors in our families AND in our Government!

Take care and be SAFE,
                                       Lee Newman
Executive Director: SAFE-NH
http://www.safe-nh.org




THIS IS WHAT THEY SENT OUT, WE NEED TO COUNTERACT........

   
December 5, 2005  
 
 
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
URGENT VAWA ACTION ALERT




ACT NOW TO SAVE VITAL HOUSING PROVISIONS
PLEASE FORWARD  
 
 
Nationwide, victims of domestic violence and stalking are being evicted for screaming for help, for calling the police, or simply for being the victims of crime.
Often victims of domestic violence are evicted when they get a restraining order because it is considered proof that a "family member or invited guest" committed a crime on the tenant's property – even though the tenant was the VICTIM of that crime!

If evicted, most victims have no where else to go. In fact, many victims fear to report violence or seek help, afraid they will be evicted and possibly become homeless.

Provisions in the Violence Against Women Act would protect victims from these unfair evictions, but the national associations representing public housing authorities oppose them and have even proposed language that makes it EASIER to evict victims!

These groups are organized, and their members are calling Congress right now demanding that these protections be removed from VAWA.

Sections 606 and 607 of the Violence Against Women Act protect victims from being evicted due to crimes committed against them. These provisions were included in the Senate version of VAWA (S. 1197) that passed unanimously in October. However, the House bill (S. 3402) did not include any housing provisions.

The House Financial Services Committee must now decide if they will agree to allow Sections 606 and 607 to be included in the final version of VAWA. They will be making this decision the week 12/5.


HOW YOU CAN HELP
Contact the House Financial Services Committee  
 
 
Members of the House Financial Services Committee must hear from you NOW or these desperately need protections will be stripped from VAWA!!
If you live in one of the states listed below, please call the Representatives listed for your state as soon as possible.

Tell them: ** Your name and the city and state you are calling from.

** "Victims of domestic violence should not be evicted due to the crimes committed against them. Please ensure that Sections 606 and 607 remain in the Violence Against Women Act."

** Tell them why it is important to you and your community that these protections stay in VAWA. Share with them any stories or information you may have regarding these issues.

** "Thank you for helping to protect victims of domestic violence from unfair evictions."


HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
This is the list of members of the House Financial Services Committee. If you live in one of these states, please call ALL of the Representatives listed for your state.  
 
 
Alabama Spencer Bachus (R-6th-AL) (p) 202.225.4921 Artur Davis (D-7th-AL) (p) 202.225.2665
Arizona Rick Renzi (R-1st-AZ) (p) 202.225.2315

California Joe Baca (D-43rd-Ca) (p) 202.225.6161 Barbara Lee (D-9th-Ca) (p) 202.225.2661 Gary Miller (R-42nd-CA) (p) 202.225.3201 Edward R. Royce (R-40th-CA) (p) 202.225.4111 Brad Sherman (D-27th-CA) (p) 202.225.5911 Maxine Waters (D-35th-CA) (p) 202.225.2201

Connecticut Christopher Shays (R-4th-CT) (p) 202.225.5541

Delaware Michael N. Castle (R-1st-DE) (p) 202.225.4165

Florida Gina Brown-Waite (R-5th-FL) (p) 202.225.1002 Tom Feeney (R-24th-FL) (p) 202.225.2706 Katherine Harris (R-13th-FL) (p) 202.225.5015 Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-20th-FL) (p) 202.225.7931

Georgia Tom Price (R-6th-GA) (p) 202.225.4501 David Scott (D013th-GA) (p) 202.225.2939

Illinois Melissa Bean (D- 8th-IL) (p) 202.225.3711 Judy Biggert (R-13th-IL) (p) 202.225.3515 Luis Gutierrez (D-4th-IL) (p) 202.225.8203 Donald A. Manzullo (R-16th-IL) (p) 202.225.5676

Indiana Julia Carson (D-7th-IN) (p) 202.225.4011

Iowa James A. Leach (R-2nd-IA) (p) 202.225.6576

Kansas Dennis Moore (D- 3rd-KS) (p) 202.225.2865 Jim Ryun (R-2nd-KS) (p) 202.225.6601

Kentucky Geoff Davis (R-4th-KY) (p) 202.225.3465

Louisiana Richard H. Baker (R-6th-LA) (p) 202.225.3901

Massachusetts Michael E. Capuano (D- 8th-MA) (p) 202.225.5111 Barney Frank (D-4th-MA) Ranking Member (p) 202.225.5931 Stephen F. Lynch (D-9th-MA) (p) 202.225.8273

Minnesota Mark R. Kennedy (R-6th-MN) (p) 202.225.2331

Missouri Wm. Lacy Clay (D-1st-MO) (p) 202.225.2406 Emanuel Cleaver (D-5th-MO) (p) 202.225.4535

New Jersey Scott Garrett (R-5th-NJ) (p) 202.225.4465

New Mexico Steve Pearce (R-2nd-NM) (p) 202.225.2365

New York Gary Ackerman (D-5th-NY) (p) 202.225.2601 Joseph Crowley (D-7th-NY) (p) 202.225.3965 Vito Fossella (R-13th-NY) (p) 202.225.3371 Steve Israel (D-2nd-NY) (p) 202.225.3335 Sue W. Kelly (R-19th-NY) Vice Chairwoman (p) 202.225.5441 Peter T. King (R-3rd-NY) (p) 202.225.7896 Carolyn B. Maloney (D-14th-NY) (p) 202.225.7944 Carolyn McCarthy (D-4th-NY) (p) 202.225.5516 Gregory Meeks (D-6th-NY) (p) 202.225.3461 Nydia M. Velazquez (D-12th-NY) (p) 202.225.2361

North Carolina Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-3rd-NC) (p) 202.224.3415 Patrick McHenry (R-10th-NC) (p) 202.225.2576 Brad Miller (D-13th-NC) (p) 202.225.3032 Melvin L. Watt (D-12th-NC) (p) 202.225.1510

Ohio Paul E. Gillmor (R-5th-OH) (p) 202.225.6405 Steven C. LaTourette (R-14th-OH) (p) 202.225.5731 Robert W. Ney (R-18th-OH) (p) 202.225.6265 Michael G. Oxley (R-4th-OH) Chairman (p) 202.225.2676 Deborah Pryce (R-15th-OH) (p) 202.225.2015 Patrick J. Tiberi (R-12th-OH) (p) 202.225.5355

Oklahoma Frank D. Lucas (R-3rd-OK) (p) 202.225.5565

Oregon Darlene Hooley (D-5th-OR) (p) 202.225.5711

Pennsylvania Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R-8th-PA) (p) 202.225.4276 Jim Gerlach (R-6th-PA) (p) 202.225.4315 Paul E. Kanjorski (D-11th-PA) (p) 202.225.6511

South Carolina J. Gresham Barrett (R-3rd-SC) (p) 202.225.5301

Texas Al Green (D-9th-TX) (p) 202.225.7508 Jeb Hensarling (R-5th-TX) (p) 202.225.3484 Ruben Hinojosa (D-15th-TX) (p) 202.225.2531 Randy Neugebauer (R-19th-TX) (p) 202.225.4005 Ron Paul (R-14th-TX) (p) 202.225.2831

Tennessee Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D-9th-TN) (p) 202.225.3265

Utah Jim Matheson (D-2nd-UT) (p) 202.225.3011

Vermont Bernard Sanders (I-1st-VT) (p) 202.225.4115

Wisconsin Gwen Moore (D-4th-WI) (p) 202.225.4572


If you have any questions or need additional information, contact Allison Randall at the National Network to End Domestic Violence at [email protected] or 202-543-5566














 
 

"Children learn what they live"

There is a good deal of news to share on many fronts.  This email contains updates on the PBS Breaking the Silence documentary, the latest edition of The Liberator, the billboard campaign in Illinois and VAWA (the violence against women act).

PBS Breaks the Silence:

Glenn Sacks, RADAR, YOU and other interested organizations including ACFC, have been participating in a campaign designed to encourage the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) to either pull or allow the airing of additional viewpoints on the biased documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories.

Both CPB and PBS have heard the outcry and are now responding.  CPB's ombudsman, Ken Bode, has released a report sharply criticizing the lack of journalistic integrity in the piece.  Read his report here.  During a conversation yesterday a CPB executive good naturedly relayed the news that a number of CPB 'Blackberry' PDA's crashed as a result of all the emails.

On November 2, ACFC sent a letter on behalf of, and endorsed by 20 other organizations, specifically questioning a number of the assertions of the documentary.  Since the sending of that letter, 9 additional organizations have provided an endorsement.  Read the letter here.

Recently PBS responded to ACFC's letter promising a review of the programming content, also indicating PBS would respond specifically to each of the points raised in the letter.  PBS indicated their detailed response would be forthcoming within thirty days.  Read the PBS response here.

ACFC thanks all of you who have supported the efforts to let PBS and CPB know that biased programming has no place on the nation's public airwaves.

Illinois Billboard Campaign

In mid October ACFC joined with a group of local parents in the Champaign-Urbanna Illinois area to draw attention to issues involving the local family court.  Click here to see the billboard.

The press continues to cover this expanding story.  We have been told the billboard has created a stir in the local legal community.  

We encourage all of you in the area to attend a local meeting on this issue next Tuesday night in Urbanna.  The meeting will begin at 6:00 pm and is being held in Room 235 of the Grainger Engineering Library located at 1301 W. Springfield Ave.  The library is on the University of Illinois campus.  Contact Robert Ferrar at 217 244-7835 if you need additional information.  

The News-Gazette published guest commentary by ACFC President Stephen Baskerville on November 14, 2005.  Click here to read the article.

New Liberator Edition

The newest edition of The Liberator shoud arrive in ACFC member mailboxes in about two weeks.  This edition focuses on child support and domestic violence issues.  All current members of ACFC receive The Liberator as part of their membership.  If you would like to receive America's Shared Parenting Quarterly, which is also sent to every state and federal elected official, join ACFC by clicking here.

Click here to read the front page.

VAWA (violence against women act)

The reauthorization of VAWA is currently stalled, however VAWA is not dead by any means.  Different versions of the bill passed the House and Senate which need to be reconciled.  VAWA has not been renewed, but VAWA programs have been funded at current levels for the next year.  The domestic violence industry is working feverishly to get the reconcilliation work on the bill initiated and reauthorization completed.  Our work on this bill is not over.  We still need to encourage legislators to rework this family disaster bill.  It's a good time to take a moment and recontact your representatives regarding this legislation. Click here to take action on VAWA.

Help spread the word about these activities and items of interst.  Send this email to a friend.

We at ACFC hope you have a peaceful holiday season.  Many of us will spend little and/or limited time with our children as a result of the family court.  ACFC is committed to the mission of shared parenting, thank you again for your support.

Sincerely,

Michael McCormick
Executive Director

 
 
Have trouble viewing this message? Click here to view this email as a web page.


Forward this message to a friend.

Change your email preferences.

ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 800-978-3237 Email: [email protected]
 

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/home/articles/2005/11/17/split_decisions/


"Children learn what they live"

http://www.nbc25.com/main/modules/xoopspoll/index.php?poll_id=83

Write the Editor and voice your thoughts.
[email protected]

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.fathers.com/articles/cats.asp

"Children learn what they live"

an e-mail newsletter from Congressman Marsha Blackburn,
and
found they are very close to passing what looks like a major
improvement to incentives to states for their CS programs:

>Child Support Enforcement. Savings of $4.899 billion in 2006-10.
Makes
changes to Child Support Enforcement, some of which cost money by
increasing the amount of collections which are passed through to the
custodial parents. Two changes result in substantial savings. Those
are
eliminating the federal match when states spend CSE incentive
payments,
saving $1.6 billion; and phasing in a reduction in the federal
matching rate
for administrative expenses from 66% to 50%, which saves $3.8
billion.  
Rep. Blackburn

The bill this is contained in is called the "Deficit Reduction Act of
2005".  The rest of the bill isn't related to family law, but it
looks
good too.  This would be a great time to contact your congressman or
woman, and ask them to support this legislation, and also to
completely
defund VAWA which is a waste of about a billion dollars a year.

Contact your federal representative:
http://www.house.gov/

http://www.cbelow.org/Child%20Support%20Commission%20Final%20Report%2012-1-04.pdf


Unfair, unbalanced and the reason why we need to do something now.

"Children learn what they live"

They need support, let's give them some...

Contact info:

 
 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Racing71, PFBergin, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], CCCWHITE, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], DBuhlman, [email protected], WilliamButynski, Berniesnorth, [email protected], Cali0917, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], CaseyCorps, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], JCilley, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Lcallcone, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], JCRAIG48, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Janeen76, [email protected], CDaniuk2002, [email protected], [email protected], SDestefano, [email protected], ADiFruscia, CYNDokmo, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Jpdowd, [email protected], [email protected], Driskorb, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Franandwalt, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], , BDField, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], HGale66, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Repgibson, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Petesgun, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Stnh073, [email protected], [email protected], Hammchris, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], RFHeon, [email protected], [email protected], RHofemann, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], NorthernPatriot, [email protected], [email protected], Reintrone, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Pij53, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], StretchNh, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], A Kopka RE, [email protected], stephen.l'[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], BRL1647, [email protected], Lessard384, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], District4Repr, Tocnoc, MikeONeilNH, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], JPratt8369, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], HON TGR, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], DRyder2706, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Beshaw3, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Snyderclair, [email protected], [email protected], Gregorysorg, JimSplaine, SBS2093, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], JTwo101588, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], KWater111, AWeare, [email protected], [email protected], RockinRW, [email protected], KWeyler, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], SenClegg, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], RPOJR, [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ACitzn, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], EAlessio, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

"Children learn what they live"

 
   
BSI International, Inc. recently received a request for assistance from  Mr. Elihu Eli, one of our Contributing Editors to our quarterly international male parenting journal -- IN SEARCH OF FATHERHOOD(R).  Mr. Eli has developed a concept for a groundbreaking Fatherhood documentary which is designed to explore a myriad of issues related to Fatherhood and is searching for a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with which to form  a partnership/strategic alliance for the purposes of securing funding for his project.  The details appear below in Mr. Eli's communication.   Information and inquiries should be directed to Mr. Eli via e-mail at [email protected].
--------------------------------
Helli,  I want  you to join me in making a documentary.  Would you help me in securing funding for our project to develop a documentary on a serious social matter that has gone ignored far too long?  Social reform is a very old and timeless business that never ends.  We have all heard of the "Deadbeat Dad", but we are hardly ever exposed to the parents whom are contributing positively to their children's lives.  How often is good parenting expressed on television?  Responsible fatherhood is more than establishing paternity.  It also involves fathers being present in the child's life (even if divorced or unmarried), sharing economic support, and being personally involved in the child's life in collaboration with the mother.  It's relatively easy to turn on the television to view scenes of crime, to learn about the latest drug on the street, being subjected to the latest meaningless fad, or any other negative influence.  What contextual force in the family and the community drives many to overcome challenges of the system to properly raise their children?  We often see images of less than admirable people being lead through the system based on their deeds.  The people are crying out for a larger scope of reality.  There are hundreds of thousands of outstanding parents whom are loosing the battle of raising their children.  Often the challenges are not drugs, crime, or poverty, but the family court and child support systems.  This will be the documentary of professionals and intelligent people telling their stories.  If you are inspired by penguins enduring the elements to raise their young, wait until the people view how parents are enduring hardship, financial adversity, suffering to simply have an influence in their children's lives.  The system allows for children to be deprived, because one parent holds animosity towards the other.  Child support enforcement agencies operate inadequately by ignoring the needs of struggling custodial parents while simply raising the amounts for those committed parents to endure more financial suffering.  Many committed support paying parents often are assigned incorrect debt amounts with no avenue for due process.  Seizures of assets are done without due process or a single day in court.  We are frequently shown images of irresponsible lowdown parents going to jail for child support arrears, but educated professionals and athletes are not immune from improper and immoral imprisonment.  There are concerns of why the greater part of the prison population in America is made up of people of color and the majority of millionaires are not.  I know that imagery and neglectful legislation are strong contributors to that fact.  Many soldiers come home to unreasonable arrears that may lead them from being heroes to instant criminals.  Many parents whom do not receive child support unsuccessfully make attempts to simply receive their children's support.  Knowing how most parents are praying and making the impossible happen is far more important than seeing a penguin walk 70 miles to mate.  Let us not forget how many athletes fall prey to the systematic abyss of creating children without long-term emotional or financial vitality that is adequate enough to effectively raise their children.  There are risks that are unique to athletes and entertainers whom have children.  Risks that may lead to imprisonment, dreadful reputations, and anguish if this documentary is not developed.  The majority of football, basketball, baseball athletes is minority, so the issues go unaddressed.  Most judges have absolute power in denying parenting privileges to a parent with little or no justification.  There is no accountability in courtroom decisions.  There are no cameras allowed in the courtrooms.  As we saw with the Katrina aftermath, there is a trend that exists of ignoring the plight of people who reside outside the spotlight of politics.  It should not take a devastating incident for us to address the hardships of parenting and surviving "The System".  The incident of Katrina was horrible, but it wasn't until the media took a stand and placed faces with misery and destitution.  There are just as many untold inspirational stories as there are horror stories.  Yes, there are horror stories.  Once Americans received a glimpse of the tragedy, the people demanded to see more.  Hearts, minds, and souls were instantly opened.  WE WANTED THE TRUTH.  WE CONTINUE TO DEMAND MORE OF THE TRUTH.  Our spirits could not proceed without moving towards positive change.  The same holds true with the project of parenting.  Once the media exposes America to the truth, there will be an overwhelming demand for positive change.   This documentary will promote equal rights and fair legislation for parents including the well being of children and increase the proportion of children growing up with involved, responsible, and committed parents.  Should we be forced to wait 30 to 50 years or until those accountable have passed on before law makers admit that the system is inconsistent and flawed.  This documentary will allow YOU to effectively promote what has been proven for positive change in America: Educate, Equip, & Engage:
· Educating and inspiring all Americans, especially fathers, through public awareness campaigns, research, and other resources.

· Equipping and developing leaders of national, state, and community fatherhood initiatives through curricula, training, and technical assistance.

· Engaging every sector of society through strategic alliances and partnerships.

This documentary will act as a stimulus for future research, programming, and policy development.  

We have reserved production staff along with 2 narrator candidates and 3 honored writers.  It has been determined that in order to increase diversity, we are opting for three more writers.  If you have a particular artist in mind to add that special flavor to the project, please feel free to pass on the attached document.  We are also adapting nationwide marketing strategies our advertisers and supporters.  Thank you in advance.  I greatly look forward to hearing from you.  For production and accounting contacts, I may be contacted by dialing 240-252-0889 or simply e-mail [email protected].

Best Regards,
Eli El
<>

"Children learn what they live"

   
[email protected] wrote:
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Action Alert 1 -- You may be a lawsuit member
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:28:15 +0000


Hello:
 
Attorney David Moody and I have discovered what may be a pattern of consistent violation of federal statutes by the counties of Texas in order to maximize their federal funding for so-called "child support enforcement".  If we're correct (we have good evidence on Tarrant County, and commonsense suspicions about the other counties) then there's an excellent lawsuit brewing -- you could be a co-plaintiff and actually receive a financial settlement as a result of the suit.
 
If you can answer yes to any of the following questions, I'd like to hear back from you:
 
1.During the last three years has the Texas Attorney General or the county where your child support order is registered failed to notifiy you that you have a right to what's called an "Administrative Review" of your child support order?  (An Administrative Review is a quick and dirty procedure to raise or lower a CS obligation to be consistent with an NCPs actual income.)
 
2. Have you requested an Administrative Review but been denied it?
 
3. Have you received an Administrative Review but not gotten a CS adjustment to make your CS consistent with your actual income?
 
4. Has your income declined significantly enough since your divorce that you'd have asked for an Administrative Review if you'd known about it, and you could can demonstrate now that your income declined?
 
If you can answer "yes" to any of these questions, please email me.  Tell me which questions you can answer "yes" to, and which county your CS obligation is registered in, and how to contact you (email or phone preferred).  I or David Moody will contact you shortly thereafter.
 
We have media contacts that are probably ready to develop this story as a government corruption story if we can get enough plaintiffs to show a pattern.  The dam is breaking, people.  This lawsuit will give it a really hard whack.  Join it if you can.
 
Best,
 
Jim Loose
 
TXDAD
 

Owner of Yahoo Group:  TXDADS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TXDADS/?yguid=145264806

 

To become a member of TXDADS click below:

[email protected]

 

Related links:

 

Father's 4 Justice - USA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/f4jusa/?yguid=145264806

 

Indiana Civil Rights Council

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianaCRC/

 

Kids Rights Radio

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/krightsradioemailgroup/

 

Men's Issues Online

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline/

 

RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting

http://www.mediaradar.org/

 

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2005/11/07/174702.html

Feminists have launched a devious attack on the U.S. Armed Services that could have a detrimental effect on morale, retention and recruitment. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a collegiate wrestler at Princeton University, and now we will see if he is man enough to stand up to feminists.

In 2004, Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, D-N.Y., introduced a bill of over 100 pages to authorize a high-level Office of the Victim Advocate in the Department of Defense. Fortunately, it didn't pass.
In 2005, congressional feminists sponsored a four-page version of the same bill, which likewise went nowhere.

But feminists are resourceful. They have persuaded the Department of Defense Office of Military Community and Family Policy to award a contract to Wellesley College Centers for Women to make recommendations about establishing an Office of the Victim Advocate in the Pentagon.

The recommendations are wholly predictable - they would be based on Slaughter's failed legislation. They will call for setting up an Office of Victim Advocate in Washington to provide feminists who major in women's studies with tax-funded jobs from which they can pursue worldwide feminist goals in the Armed Services and destroy the career of any man who stands in a woman's way.

 
A Pentagon Office of the Victim Advocate would soon become an out-of-control agency working to implement feminist beliefs, i.e., men are batterers and women are victims, a woman's complaint or he said-she said allegation must be accepted as valid and acted upon while no presumption of innocence is granted to the man, the definition of domestic violence does not have to be violent or even physical and the complaining woman must be provided with free legal and "victim services" while the man is on his own to find and hire a lawyer willing to challenge feminist anti-male orthodoxy.

Wellesley's recommendations will doubtless include many of the details spelled out in the original Slaughter bill, such as a rule that no military man can be eligible for promotion if he has received any adverse personnel action relating to sexual misconduct or domestic violence. Another caveat is that arrest and prosecution of the man must go forward even if there is no visible indication of injury and even if the victim opposes prosecution.

Surely Wellesley will copy portions of the Slaughter bill that authorize feminist pork. The victim is to be provided a victim advocate, a victim counselor and victim support liaison, and lucrative contracts are to be awarded to the domestic-violence service industry to train the Defense Department on how to support self-proclaimed victims.

Violence against women should, of course, be aggressively prosecuted. But there is no justice when the government accepts feminist dogma that the woman is always right while the man is always wrong. Rumsfeld needs to understand that the civilian domestic-violence lobby uses a definition of domestic violence that includes facial gestures, perceived insults, put-downs, embarrassments, and other annoyances and disagreements.

Another portion of the Slaughter bill that will probably turn up in Wellesley's recommendations is the prohibition against providing "couple counseling or mediation." The Slaughter bill also includes the requirement that the man must sign a release to allow private information on his case to be given to 14 different agencies.

A Pentagon Office of the Victim Advocate would make it easy for a woman to destroy the military career of any man by a simple accusation, whether or not it is true or proven. Motives to stick the knife in a man are endless, including rejection after a relationship gone sour, disappointment when he resists her advances, an unwanted pregnancy, preventing the man from getting joint custody of his child, resentment about an unpleasant assignment, or envy because she was passed over for promotion.

It is curious that feminists are interested in combating violence against women only by friendly forces. Feminists constantly demand that U.S. women be assigned to combat situations where violence against women by the enemy is considered OK because it promotes sex equality in the military and career advancement for women.

The recent Public Broadcasting Service program called "Breaking the Silence" is an example of feminist propaganda that men are batterers and women are victims. Among the falsehoods in the film was the assertion that "one-third of mothers lose custody (of their children) to abusive husbands" and that if a divorcing father seeks any form of child custody, he's most likely a wife beater.

In fact, divorced fathers win child custody of their children only 15 percent of the time, and U.S. government figures show that the majority of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect are female. Yet the Mary Kay Ash Foundation paid $500,000 to film and publicize the PBS war on dads.

Feminists always think big when it comes to spending other people's money. If the Slaughter legislation had passed, it would have put $218,600,000 over four years into feminist coffers, and they will now be seeking that incrementally from Rumsfeld in addition to the many supportive programs that already exist.

Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum.

Email to a friend Print this page
"Children learn what they live"

NEWS ALERT:

A special tonight on Paternity Fraud Geraldo at large on Fox TV network

Topic: Paternity Fraud - a college professor gets a surprise when he gets DNA testing on three kids from his ex-wife. You won't believe what was done to him ... tell a friend to watch this show tonight.
 
You should be able to see this show on your local affliate station.

RADIO update:
We were own the Michael Baisden show discussing paternity Fraud and legislation on 11-09-05 in more
than 22 cities on ABC radio.

To hear the Paternity Fraud theme song, order paternity fraud shirts and legal DNA testing in all 50
states. Click on http://www.carnellsmith.com

List owner:
4Truth Identity Inc, c/o PaternityFRAUD.com, 3013 Rainbow Drive, STE 120, Decatur, GA 30034
404-289-3321 [Member of Atlanta Better Business Bureau]
--This is the message footer--
If you want to be removed from the PaternityFRAUD.com mailing list...)


"Children learn what they live"

Michigan Attorney General Acknowledges Having An Affair and Now
Guilty Of Felony

While Mike Cox trieds to bring about the demise of a political
challenger recent extramarital affair is exposed.

If this man will betray the trust of his Wife and Daughter what is
he doing to the good people of Michigan?

Must Mr. Cox Resign as Michigan's Attorney General. Is he in
violation of the very laws he has taken oath to enforce. Michigan
Compiled Laws 750.30: "Any person who shall commit adultery shall be
guilty of a felony"

http://krightsradio.com/affaircox.php




"Children learn what they live"

We haelped in Iowa last year with great sucess. We need to do the same now. More crutial then ever...

Copy and paste, send to legislators and the media.


 
Dear Child Advocates and Equal Parenting Rights Supporters,
 
 
HB529, the presumption of equal parenting rights and responsibilities bill that was retained by the New Hampshire House Children and Family Law Committee earlier this year must be acted upon shortly by this same Committee or it may be swept under the legislative rug only to disappear.
 
The opponents of equal parenting rights for both mothers and fathers would like nothing better than to sweep this bill under the rug and have it forgotten.
 
Instructively, the opponents of equal parenting rights have influenced the top family court judge in the state to recently write a letter to the House Children and Family Law Committee, along with the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bill will be considered if it passes the NH House, asking the legislature to not pass HB529.
 
Judge Edwin Kelly, the adminstrative head of the New Hampshire Family Courts recently wrote a letter to the members of the House Children and Family Law Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that HB529, for the presumption of equal parenting rights and responsibilities, not be passed into law.
 
It is extremely inappropriate for the the state's top family court judge to be lobbying the legislature in opposition to equal parenting reform.  The crux of Judge Kelly's reasoning in the letter is to equate an explicit presumptive (though rebuttable) protection of equal parenting rights and responsibilities to the word 'magnitude'.    Judge Kelly proclaims that the legislature shouldn't pass parenting protections law that rises to the 'magnitude' of HB529, while at the same time the family court judges and marital masters in the state are denying NH's children equal access to their father in 75% of all child custody orders.
 
http://www.nhcustody.org/NH_custody_statistics.htm
 
 
In arguing against the passage of HB529 Judge Kelly is not only violating the separation of powers [between the Legislature and Judiciary], he is also explicitly lobbying against statutory language that would merely reiterate the Constitution's 14th amendment equal protection clause.
 
Judge Kelly's letter, which gives the term 'judicial activism' a new meaning, is attached to this message.    
 
HB529 needs to be passed, and it needs to be passed now.   Judge Kelly's actions are amongst the most instructive examples of how the opponents of the presumption of equal parenting rights have gotten a foothold in the the New Hampshire Family Courts and continue to influence the adminstration of 'justice' during child custody proceedings.    
 
 
Now is the time to contact the legislature in support of this bill and to tell them that it is absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable for the state's top family court judge to be lobbying them in opposition to the bill.    Our elected officials need to hear what the public thinks about this breach of ethics.
 
Another message will follow immediately after this one and include much more information related to how Judge Kelly and the entire NH family court system is being influenced by the opponents of equal parenting reforms.    The fox is truly watching the henhouse in the NH family courts.    
 
If the public does not let our elected officials know that we expect them to pass HB529 right now then they may succumb to the pressure of the opposition, including the NH judiciary itself, and continue to allow the forced separation of child and parent without cause and without explanation.   There is little time left.   Please act now...
 
 
Please use the following legislative contact list when you email your letter in support of HB529:  
 
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
 
 
You may also want to consider copying your message to the NH media.   Our elected officials need to recognize that the entire state is watching what they do with HB529 and with the authority and responsibility that has been given them by the NH voting public.   Many of these media contacts are already familiar with the issues, however, they need to know the level of public interest in these matters.   Here is a media contact list:
 
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
 
 
More information will follow shortly.
 
 
Regards to you and your family,
 
NHCUSTODY.ORG
 
 
 
"Children learn what they live"

 
Go to each link, READ, BECOME EDUCATED, SHARE with others in NH, ACT:
 
Http://www://nh.gov/csm/publications.html
 
Http://www.nhjustice.net
 
Http://www.nhcustody.org/
 
 
If everyone sends CSM report to 10 other males/Fathers in NH we will have 100s educated in NH Family Law abuses....
 
If everyone sends to NCPs we will have hundreds of new folks educated.
 
If everyone send to voters of NH the NH Justice link, we can educate about a corrupt and very dark NH family law system and abusive STATE practices...
 
Jim O'Brien
Hooksett, NH
 
an abused NH Father who will never forget what the NH Family laws abusers did to my children and myself.
 
 

"Children learn what they live"

J.A.I.L. News Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California                                           November 7, 2005
______________________________________________________
Mission Statement                  JNJ Library                     PayPal Support
Federal J.A.I.L.                           FAQs                    What?MeWarden?
 
//www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.org
CONGRATULATIONS ON SUBMITTING 46,800 SIGNATURES!
______________________________________________________
 
Signatures Submitted In
South Dakota
(Bill said to go ahead and make the announcement today instead of waiting for the Atlanta Freedom Rally this weekend)
 
 
We are thrilled to announce that today, November 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. Central Time, Bill Stegmeier, the South Dakota JAILer-In-Chief and the Proponent of the South Dakota J.A.I.L. Initiative ([email protected]) has submitted
 
46,800 signatures
 
to the South Dakota Secretary of State in the presence of the AP.
 
Bill sounds fine and in great shape after the 200-mile driving trip to Pierre, the State Capitol, and after the many tedious hours, weeks, and days coordinating the South Dakota petition drive with Susan Johnson, head of the signature-collection company who made it a success. Susan assured us when she first came on board in August that "It's in the bag" and we now know that she knew what she was talking about. When we visited South Dakota in February 2004, Bill held a meeting at his factory to introduce us to his business associates and friends; and one of his vendors told us "If Bill says that something will be done, IT WILL BE DONE-- you can bank on it!" That was referring to Bill's decision to make J.A.I.L. a "go" in S.D. That guy knew what he was talking about too!
 
Bill said that everything went pretty well at the Secretary of State's Office. He said that the SOS at first appeared to be looking for some kind of error, but everything was fine. We will be receiving word from the SOS in about three weeks (by the end of this month).
 
The Associated Press was there by reporter Chuck Brokaw (Bill forgot to ask if he was related to the famous TV news anchor). Bill was teasing with Chuck, saying that he was disappointed in running only second in number of signatures submitted. Senator Napoli of Rapid City came in first with 51,000 signatures on his initiative, and they have to certify him first.
 
Bill wrote up a one-page nutshell summary of what the J.A.I.L. Initiative was about and gave a copy to Kia Warner, in charge of Elections, and a copy to AP. Bill said that Brokaw took all kinds of pictures, including the two cases of signed petitions, and he got a receipt for them from the SOS.
 
So folks, the "Good Ship J.A.I.L." is now at the starting gate, getting ready to pull out of the harbor, having dropped off its cargo of 46,800 signatures on J.A.I.L. petitions, and head for the high seas toward the Port of Victory-South Dakota in November 2006. The required number of valid signatures is 33,456.
 
We now move into the next phase: Publicity, and we are ready for it. We anticipate much opposition and support from the media. Said another way, it'll be a "Show-Down at OK Corral."  Ron is thinking of having the victory celebration on the steps of the State Supreme Court in Pierre on December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day-- easy to remember), a month after the election to give people plenty of notice to be there. Winter in South Dakota may be a challenge, but our excitement will warm the cockles of our hearts.
 
ONWARD TO VICTORY!
 
Let's let Bill Stegmeier and Susan Johnson know how much we appreciate what they have done for this cause!  Bill made it all possible in the first place, and Susan followed through. Our heartiest congratulations for a job well done by everyone who helped in South Dakota!
 
Ron & Barbie
[email protected]
 
Bill Stegmeier
[email protected]
 
Susan Johnson
[email protected]

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

 
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - //www.jail4judges.org
Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at [email protected]
To be added or removed, write to [email protected]
Your help is needed: //www.SouthDakotaJudicialAccountability.com
 
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
 
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
 
"Children learn what they live"