Author: ChildrensRightsFL
Fighting to preserve Parent–Child relationships to improve the lives of children and strengthen society by protecting t he child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation/divorce.
Dedicated to the proposition that children are best served by having unfettered EQUAL access to BOTH parents and to the ...proposition that fathers are indispensable.
Improve the lives of children and strengthen society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. We seek better lives for children through family court reform!!
It's about the human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young, including their right to association with both biological parents.
An Example of an Anti-Father’s Rights, Liberal Moron!
If You Support Men’s and Father’s For Equal Parental Rights, You Have to Vote for Cara Nicole, Not Juan Mendez! Why? Because Juan Mendez, An Example of an Anti-Father’s Rights, Liberal Moron! – Men’s Rights Group of AZ
If you think Juan Mendez is a complete fool, moron and just unfit to hold public office your not the only one!
In fact, according to the American’s for Parental Equality and men’s rights advocates, you could be right!
Many men’s and father’s rights activist have long held the opinion that Juan Mendez has single-handedly worked against legislation to change bias family court laws. This opinion appears to be true in recent public statements Juan Mendez has made.
Juan Mendez was recently asked,
“What do you plan to do to bring equality to fathers being denied rights to their children in family court when there is no domestic violence or criminal history?”
Juan Mendez looked a little shocked by the question and even asked for it to be repeated so he could compose himself. Then, the idiot (in our opinion) spilled his feminist guts.
At least from his statements…
Mendez openly plans to keep denying father’s rights to their biological children.
A Facebook video of this moron has now reached 34 thousand views of how Mendez side-stepped the entire question while throwing a bone to his liberal-feminist allies.
Source: Juan Mendez, An Example of an Anti-Father’s Rights, Liberal Moron! – Men’s Rights Group of AZ
Related articles
Share this:
JUSTICE4CHILDREN ~ Human Rights, Justice, Civil Rights.
Fatherless Father’s Day ~ A fight for equal parental rights
The couple sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Aug. 12, 2011, detailing 23 adjustments they wanted for CPS. Some requests included ending bonuses paid to each CPS worker for a child …
Last testament of a loving father abused by the family court system and alienated from his children
Originally posted on Women for Men: This August our 11-year-old son will begin the sixth grade at Chaminade Preparatory School in St. Louis, MO. It is an all boys Catholic school. Chris Mack…
Whores of the Court
Judges merely redirect the dysfunction of one parent as a means to achieve an equitable settlement without regard for children. Related articles
Share this:
Hunger Protest ~ To be part of children’s lives.
http://www.parentalrights.us/video/hunger-protest-interview-ray-schwabstrong_50896f4c0.htmlHunger Protest – Interview Ray Schwabstrong
Posted by Children’s Rights on Friday, March 25, 2016
http://www.parentalrights.us/video/hunger-protest-interview-ray-schwabstrong_50896f4c0.html
Hunger protest at the state capital in Kansas. Ray Schwabstrong talks about how the system systematically isolated his parental rights to see and be part of his children’s lives. Ray talks about how is daughter was sexually abused while in custody of the state. To further the argument, Ray further explains the corruption within family court and social services and how the judge makes up rules as they continue a unconstitutional proceedings.
Ray is fighting for his rights with his wonderful wife on his side in protesting his parental rights to be a loving parent.
Supporting his family is what all of us brothers and sisters out should be doing. We need to put a stop to this abusive system that cares nothing more then hurting the children causing hardship for the parents and destroying our society.
Source: Hunger Protest – Interview Ray Schwabstrong
Continue reading Hunger Protest ~ To be part of children’s lives.
Share this:
Men and Women Should Be Treated Equally in Family Courts
At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to know their children.
Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue
At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states.
The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation.
Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress “to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights.”
In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in custody matters.
According to the suits, state practices appear to be “willful, reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers” with a “systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process” of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.
In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.
The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse — president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the suits — says that paperwork is under way for submission to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district court.
If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire class who shares a grievance.
What specific relief is being sought?
The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main relief sought from federal court is the immediate “restoration/elevation to equal custodial status” of all current non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.
The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.
For example, the “prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences with natural parents.” Also, the “abolishment of forced/court-ordered child support in most cases.” Support of the child would be borne by each parent during their own parenting time.
The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children’s welfare. The press release cites a much-touted study entitled “Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements,” which was published in the APA’s Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded, “Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families.”
In this sense, the suits also advocate children’s rights.
Other reliefs being sought are financial in nature; some of them take the suits into murky areas. For example, the suits ask for “reimbursement” from custodial parents to non-custodial parents of any state-ordered child support that exceeded the “maximum limits of federal law.” This ceases to be an appeal to constitutional or parental rights and instead pits one set of civil law against another, with retroactive penalties being imposed.
In addition, the suits ask for “various damages against the Defendant [the state named] in the aggregate value of $1,000,000 payable per Plaintiff.” The court awards would be “executable upon all monies, property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interest and anything whatsoever of any value” owned or controlled by the State. The suits request that “an appropriate portion” of the award be provided by the liquidation or direct transfer of title of “unused, abandoned, or unnecessary state property and assets.”
The number of non-custodial parent plaintiffs who sign on to a federal class action cannot be predicted but it could run into millions; the collective damages could run into billions or even trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing profit rather than justice.
When asked to elaborate on the amount of damages, Howse clarified, “We are preparing, later this week, to offer proposed settlements that will waive the vast majority of damages, among other things, in exchange for a quick restoral of equal custody rights, a few forms of tax abatements/credits to balance what custodial parents have enjoyed for years and some other basic and related issues, like the setting up of neutral visitation exchange centers, and the like.”
He added, “It has never been about winning large amounts of money from the states … It’s about restoring the lives of our children, and restoring our own lives.”
I genuinely hope the settlements come to pass. Stripped of their financial demands, the suits could go a long way toward removing what I believe to be the worst laws governing child custody in disputed divorce.
At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to know their children.
And the equal need of children to embrace both parents.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
Source: Pledge to make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protect · Men and Women Should Be Treated Equally in Family Courts. · Causes
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict LitigationContinue reading Men and Women Should Be Treated Equally in Family Courts
Share this:
Child’s Best Interest vs. Parental Rights
The “Parental Rights Initiative” required courts to award “equal parenting time” to both parents after divorce or separation. The measure was defeated by a sizeable margin (62% to 38%) but it represents only the latest round in a combustible campaign to change how child custody cases are decided.
A history of child custody (in a nutshell)
Colonial Americans followed the English common law rule that upon divorce the father retained custody of his children. Fathers had the right to the physical custody, labor and earnings of their children in exchange for supporting, educating, and training them to earn their own livelihoods or, in the case of girls, marry a man who would support them.
Colonial mothers, though deemed worthy of honor and deference, were not endowed with legally enforceable parental rights.
This paternal preference continued well into the 19th century. In fact, the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls – the first women’s rights convention – listed the fathers’ automatic custody rule among its principal complaints. But women began gaining the upper hand as our legal system dealt with two cultural transformations: the industrial revolution’s remaking men into marketplace wage earners and the emergence of a “separate sphere” for women as domestic caregivers.
By the early 20th century, motherhood had attained near-mythical status. Under the “tender years” presumption, custody of young children was almost exclusively awarded to mothers upon divorce.
It took a social revolution to unseat the tender years doctrine and replace it with gender-neutral custody standards.
Mounting divorce rates in the 1960s and ensuing decades provoked a lively debate about parental roles and custody issues. The movement for gender equality, along with the rise of fathers’ rights groups, called attention to the importance of both parents in the care of children at the same time as loosening the link between gender and parental roles.
The end of formal rules dictating a result favoring one parent over the other led to the adoption of a more inclusive but less definitive standard of deciding custody cases based on the “best interests of the child.” This standard opened up the possibility of excessive judicial discretion as well as a threat of inconsistency in the results, resulting in hotly contested custody battles.
From the rule of one to the sharing of custody
No matter how child custody was determined, one rule continued to be ironclad: custody was indivisible. After a marital breakup, only one parent could properly raise the children, with the other parent entitled merely to visiting rights. Until the late 20th century, courts regularly refused to allow divorcing parents to share custody. The dominant view was that after divorce a child needed the full time stability of a home run by one parent.
Continue reading Child’s Best Interest vs. Parental Rights
Share this:
Family Court ~ “An enclave in which equality has no meaning.”
Leon Koziol.Com | Civil Rights Advocate
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
On this Martin Luther King Day, we join fellow Americans in paying tribute to our greatest civil rights leader. It’s hard to imagine in our lifetimes that a day existed when entire neighborhoods and school districts were segregated on account of race. As a free society we have come a long way indeed.
Unfortunately in family courts throughout the same land, we’ve gone in an opposite direction. This is an enclave in which equality has no meaning, civil rights are trampled upon and African-Americans are being slaughtered or imprisoned for money debts. A prime example is Walter Scott murdered this past year by a traffic cop in South Carolina while fleeing a child support warrant.
Family court has been described as a “constitution-free zone.” The state has found a mechanism for oppression by exploiting our children to raise revenues and fees on the backs of fathers who simply find themselves unable to meet expenses after taxes and child support are deducted from their paychecks.
And it’s not just minorities being imprisoned for these debts. Our military and law enforcement represent a growing constituency of victims. In upstate New York a police investigator committed a murder-suicide upon leaving support court leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability, see Pearce v Longo.
Fathers are still 85% of all child support payors and we have become the most imprisoned population in the free world. A trillion dollar industry has forced dedicated dads to be on a constant defensive in these courts. It’s long past a time when equality and civility are achieved in the places most trusted to protect our basic human rights.
Continue reading Family Court ~ “An enclave in which equality has no meaning.”
Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers 