His Side Listeners Bombard Senate Leader's Office, Score Round 1 Victory!

[Brent]

From Glenn Sacks.......

As many of you know, during Sunday's broadcast I announced a new His Side
listener campaign. It is the first since our consumer boycott campaign against
the 'Boys are Stupid' Products, a coordinated action which achieved its primary
objectives and made newspapers all over the world.

Our new campaign is designed to prevent Senate President Pro Tem John Burton
(D-San Francisco) from sneaking a "stealth" bill through the legislature which
would harm children and the fathers they love and need by destroying the
California Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) .
The Burton bill would give custodial parents the right to move children
wherever they want, whenever they want--without even needing to obtain a court order.

We won round one.

On Monday and Tuesday hundreds of His Side listeners--supporters of the newly
formed Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways
(//www.ACCAMA.org)--bombarded Burton's office with calls, faxes and e-mails. By noon, Burton's
principal consultant Anthony Williams contacted ACCAMA and invited its
representatives to meet and discuss the situation. See Talk Radio Campaign Blocks CA.
Senate Leader's 'Stealth' Family Law Bill (MND Newswire, 7/14/04) for more details.
I have extended Senator Burton an open invitation to appear on His Side to
discuss his bill.

Like most in Sacramento, Williams is accustomed to only hearing the feminist
viewpoint on family law, and was no doubt stunned at the avalanche of
opposition. More importantly, because of the large response, it will no longer be
possible for Burton to slip the bill through unnoticed. This fight will have
several rounds--I will inform you when further action is needed. In the interim, I
recommend that you browse the ACCAMA site's [a href=http://www.accama.org/information.php]information page[/a].

[smtotwo]

While DH and I aren't in CA we are very concerned about the move away issue.  Our Psychomommy moved from WI to CO and left no forwarding address with anyone except (of course) child support.

She has since moved back and only by the grace of god and her own ignorance was jurisdiction never moved to CO after her 6 month of residence there.

Please keep us posted on this!!    Again thanks.

[MYSONSDAD]

What he is trying to do is very scary....

LEGISLATIVE ALERT
  =================================
Anti-LaMusga Legislation

As far as BriefCase can ascertain, no official "legislative response"  
has yet been introduced to overturn the LaMusga opinion. However, a  
draft of a proposed bill is being circulated that is attributed to  
Senator John Burton. As the time to introduce new legislation has  
passed, the rumor is that he will hijack a bill that has been through  
committee, such as a transportation bill, gut it, insert the enclosed  
language and then bring it to a vote on the floor before there can be  
critical debate on it. Sen. Burton clearly has the power to do this.

Concerned organizations and interested persons are mobilizing to make  
certain that their representatives and the Governor are aware of their  
opinions on the proposed legislation. Flexcom has already taken a very  
strong stand and the text of their letter is set forth below. ACFLS and  
the Southern California Chapter of AAML are considering a response.

It is important our legislators and the Governor hear as many views as  
possible on this most important topic.

In addition to your individual representatives, you should let the  
following people know your opinion on the proposed legislation and the  
tactic of bringing it to a vote without input or debate:

Drew Liebert Chief Counsel Assembly Judiciary Committee 1020 N Street,  
Room 104 Sacramento, California 95814 916.319.2334 phone 916.319.2188  
fax [email protected]

Gene Wong Chief Counsel Senate Judiciary Committee 1020 N Street Bldg.  
Room 2187 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5957 [email protected]

Larry Doyle Chief Legislative Counsel The State Bar of California 1201  
"K" Street, Suite 720 Sacramento, CA 95814-3945 916-442-8018 FAX  
916-442-6916 and 978-359-3087 [email protected]

Karen Pank Deputy Leg Chair, Office of the Gov Office of Governor  
Arnold Schwarzenegger Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-4341 (916)327-1009  
[email protected]

Included below are: 1) The text of the bill that is apparently being  
considered by Sen. Burton. 2) Flexcom's response. 3) An open letter  
from Peter Walzer, Esq., CFLS, AAML.

1) TEXT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION  
=============================================================
I. INTENT: It is the intention of the legislature to reaffirm Family  
Code __________ as public policy in relocation disputes.

The legislature recognizes the reality of an increasingly mobile  
society; the paramount need for continuity and stability of custody  
orders, both temporary and permanent, whether pursuant to parties'  
stipulation or judicial decree; and the per se detriment to children of  
disruption of established patterns of custody and care.  The  
legislature also recognizes the benefit to children of ongoing contact  
with both parents when feasible, acknowledging that such contact may be  
maintained following a relocation by either parent through a variety of  
methods, including but not limited to physical visitation, e-mails,  
written mail, and telephone calls.

II. Amendments to FC 7501:

(a) same.

(b) same, and add: The Supreme Court opinion in In re Marriage of  
LaMusga (cite) does not comply with the intent of the legislature and  
is therefore abrogated in its entirety.

(c) The custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the  
residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or  
her to do so.  A custodial parent's offer to maintain the existing  
amount of timeshare, although on a different schedule appropriate to  
the age of the child and distance of the move, shall establish that the  
relocation is made in good faith.

(d) The court shall not issue conditional parent seeking to the  
noncustodial parent based solely on a relocation or proposed relocation  
by the custodial parent.

(e) A noncustodial parent seeking to restrain relocation of the  
children or obtain custody because of the relocation has the burden of  
showing all of the following:

(i) that the relocation will result in a substantial change of  
circumstance unrelated to the move itself,

(ii) that the relocation will result in detriment to the children, and

(iii) that it is essential for the welfare of the child to change  
custody to the noncustodial parent.

Disruption of the noncustodial parent and child relationship due to the  
inability to maintain frequent and continuing contact does not satisfy  
the noncustodial parent's burden of proof for a change of custody or to  
restrain the relocation of the children by the noncustodial parent.

(f) The court shall not issue any temporary or ex parte orders of  
restraint on the custodial parents' right to relocate with the Children  
absent an evidentiary hearing and written findings of fact showing that  
the noncustodial parent has satisfied his or her burden of proving a  
substantial change of circumstance and detriment to the children by the  
relocation.  In such finding, the court shall not consider factors  
related to the move itself, including but not limited to the effect of  
the relocation on the child's relationship with the noncustodial  
parent, the distance of the move, the age of the children, the child's  
relationship with both parents, or the relationship between the  
parents, including their ability to communicate and cooperate.

(g) This state shall apply to all custody orders, whether temporary or  
permanent, stipulated or pursuant to judicial decree.

2) FLEXCOM'S RESPONSE   June 22, 2004  
========================================================================
= TO:            Larry Doyle, Chief Legislative Counsel

BILL:            Proposed Legislation re La Musga

POSITION:      OPPOSE

Dear Larry:

The Executive Committee of the State Bar Family Law Section has  
reviewed a draft of legislation expected to be introduced in response  
to the recent California Supreme Court case In Re Marriage of La Musga.

The proposed legislation seeks first to totally abrogate the La Musga  
ruling.  The reason stated is that the La Musga ruling does not reflect  
the policy of the State, set forth at FC§7501 (based on legislation  
last year purporting to codify the holding of In Re Marriage of  
Burgess).

The Family Law Section Executive Committee believes this is incorrect.  
A careful reading of the La Musga opinion shows that the Supreme Court  
in fact specifically affirmed and upheld the Burgess decision in this  
recent case.  The Court clarified the Burgess decision as it applied to  
the fact in La Musga.

The proposed legislation, as presently drafted, sets forth a list of  
provisions that are too extreme and one-sided to address the needs of  
all parents, male and female, who are dealing with the issues of a  
relocation/move-away.  The law should be balanced to protect the rights  
of all parties, as well as their children, not just one segment of the  
population.

As attorneys who consistently represent not only both mothers and  
fathers, but also, when appointed by the Court, the children involved  
in such "move-away" cases, we have a strong interest in ensuring a  
balanced approach to this issue.

The La Musga opinion sets forth numerous practical and realistic  
factors the Court must consider in determining if a child's proposed  
relocation is appropriate.  One of the provisions in the proposed  
legislation prohibits the Court from considering any of these factors –  
virtually eliminating anything for the Court to consider in reaching a  
decision.  Every one of the factors the legislation seeks to eliminate  
is relevant to a proper and balanced analysis of the effect of the  
proposed move on the child(ren) in question.

The Sponsors of this legislation basically take the position that any  
parent who exercises primary care (even 51%) of a child should be  
allowed to dictate to the other parent what is best for the child(ren).  
Their position is that the primary parent's life choices (e.g.  
relocation) are per se best for the child(ren) regardless of any level  
of negative impact that choice has on the child(ren).

A legislative policy that realistically gives total control of a  
family's child(ren) to the parent who has the majority of parenting  
time is a time-bomb.  This only forces parents in every  
separation/dissolution to litigate fully any initial parenting schedule  
that is not a 50-50 time sharing.  Just because in many situations an  
equal parenting schedule may not be appropriate, at least initially, or  
in the child(ren)'s best interest is not a legitimate basis for  
virtually denying one parent any rights over his/her child(ren).

The provision prohibiting a Court from making any temporary order  
preventing one parent from relocating, pending a Court's determination  
on the ultimate issue of the move, is not appropriate.  To allow the  
relocating parent to establish the child(ren)'s residence elsewhere  
while the Court evaluates the issue is extremely prejudicial and  
frankly unfair to the child(ren) in the event the Court ultimately  
decides against the permanent move for the child(ren), causing  
significant distress and disruption of the child(ren)'s life with  
repeated moves.

The legislation proposed would make it impossible for a parent to ever  
prevent the other parent from relocating their child(ren) regardless of  
the harm to the child(ren) from such a move.  The Sponsor's fear is  
that the decision in La Musga  will do just the opposite – make it  
impossible for a parent to relocate his/her child(ren).  This is not an  
accurate reading/interpretation of the La Musga opinion. The Supreme  
Court's opinion did not radically change the process/analysis of the  
relocation issue by the trial Court.  The ultimate burden is still on  
the non-moving party.

This proposed legislation actually expands the applicability of §7501  
far beyond what was intended in In Re Marriage of Burgess.  The number  
of families that actually fall with in the "exception" or description  
of §7501, as determined in Burgess  (where one parent has sole physical  
custody by Court order or de facto because of very minimal parenting  
time to the other), is really only a small percentage of  
divorced/separated families in California.

This legislation expands that description of §7501 cases to impliedly  
include all cases where one parent has the majority of parenting time  
(e.g. 51%-49%).  It then seeks to take the holding/ruling in Burgess,  
as to the burden of proof, and broaden it to such a degree that it  
cannot be met by any non-moving parent.

If Burgess states the policy and intent of the Legislature – as it  
stands, then there is no basis for trying to expand upon the Burgess  
holding to the extreme degree this legislation does, nor to try to  
abrogate the La Musga ruling that does affirm Burgess with some  
reasonable clarification.

We strongly oppose this draft legislation and each provision thereof.

Sincerely,

BARTHOLOMEW, WASZNICKY & MOLINARO LLP

DIANE E. WASZNICKY

DEW/ks

3) PETER WALZER'S OPEN LETTER
  =========================================================
To Whom it May Concern:

There is a Burton bill pending that has been drafted to overturn the La  
Musga opinion. It is a comprehensive bill that it shifts the burden to  
the parent restricting the move away, forecloses using the affect of  
the move to show detriment to the child, and provides a presumption  
allowing a move and disallowing a best interest test. The author's  
office is not sharing the proposed bill and will not disclose when or  
where it will show up. We expect that they are looking for a bill that  
has already gone through committee and will gut and amend it with this  
new bill to shorten the review process. We are looking for help in a  
quick response and strong opposition to this bill.

Opposition should be directed to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary  
Committees and the Governor's office.

Sincerely,

Peter M. Walzer

[jilly]

Good Lord!!! The language of this proposed bill sure tells you what this politician thinks about Father's Rights!
Yet another reason why I would never want to live in California. LOL Although, at times, I'm not so sure North Carolina is all that great either!
Not being one who is politically active or involved in the political process, how do I go about keeping tabs on my elected officials on matters like this?  Just skimming over this additional information made my heart skip a beat. It is so easy for politicians to slip in legislation like this without anybody knowing about it and then next thing you know the legislation is passed and the public is left with a "what the hell??!!" look on their collective faces. I've heard that this tactic is used quite frequently by politicians who don't want their constituents knowing what they're doing until it's too late to do anything about it.

[MYSONSDAD]

One thing I do is subscribe to the press releases for my State. Of course, there is much they do not tell you. Just keep the eyes and ears open.