Friday, 28 September 2012

STAND UP JOIN US- STOP THE ABUSE IN COURTS WITH CPS, FOSTER CARE AND DIVORCE

https://www.facebook.com/events/347315435343140/

WELCOME ALL STATES CANADA, THE UK AND AUSTRALIA

All groups welcome, men, women, grandparents, other extended family, former and current foster children, adult children of divorced parents. It is time to collectively make a stand. I hope to see you this year.

Deb Justice For Families and Children Lynn Picciano and Jacqueline are Coordinators for all the Northeast regions email Jan Smith for info on the other regions please call we need all on board in every state. WE THE PARENTS MOTHE

RS FATHERS GRANDPARENTS SISTERS BROTHERS AUNTS UNCLES ARE IN UNITY TO STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CHILDREN if your stepping out and shouting out with us on sept 28th Go to site below also. WE ARE THE VOICES OF CHILDREN EVERYWHERE

FLYER FOR THE NATIONWIDE PROTEST.

VICTIM OF:

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CPS – FAMILY COURT- FOSTER CARE?

False allegations by CPS, forced adoption, foster care placement, instead of family placement, abused in foster care, falsified cps documentation, children sent back with abuser etc. Non-custodial parent issues, Visitation problems, unreasonable child support, VAWA concerns

COME JOIN THE:

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 28, 2012

FB- National Association of Family & Child Advocates

We are looking for an Australian co-ordinator Click HERE!!!

It’s the best of states, it’s the worst of states.  Among family court reform advocates, New Hampshire is widely known as one of the very worst states in the nation if you’re a father trying to assert his parental rights in a custody case.  The unfettered power with which Marital Masters, judges, Guardians ad Litem, etc., go about the business of separating fathers from their children is something to behold.  Many times I’ve listened agog to fathers describing officials whose actions seem completely arbitrary and limited by no apparent rules of evidence, procedure or due process.  They sound to me more like feudal lords than judges.  As an attorney who’s used to basic things like notice of hearings, production of evidence before a judicial decision and the like, I was at first hesitant to believe what I was hearing.

But now it seems that, in one way at least, New Hampshire is the best of states.  That’s because it still hangs on to the concept of the rule of the people.  In an age in which everyday people find themselves further and further from the corridors of power, New Hampshire has something called the House Committee on the Redress of Grievances.  As the name indicates, it’s a committee of the state House of Representatives.  It hears citizens complaints about public officials, decides whether they’re founded or unfounded and recommends action by the full house.  Sometimes it recommends that the official in question be impeached.  Ain’t democracy grand?

Here, here, here, here and here are the findings and recommendations on five complaints made to the Committee.  All five concern the behavior of family court judges and other court personnel; all five complaints are deemed “founded” and all five contain recommendations for action by the House, some of which are truly far-reaching.

By all means read the five.  Each is short, but together they paint a portrait of a family judiciary that clearly believes it can do anything it wants any way it wants to anyone it wants with no concern for consequences.  Leave a group of four-year-olds alone in the sand box long enough and you’d see the same type of behavior.  These people don’t care about the law, they don’t care about due process, they don’t care about evidence, and they certainly don’t care about children.  If this weren’t New Hampshire, I’d call it the wild West.

The first example is about a Guardian ad Litem named Tracy Bernson.

[T]he Committee finds that the Petitioner was wrongly denied by the Family Division all visitation with his child contrary to N.H. law and his constitutional rights for approximately 13 months. This wrongful situation was due to: Guardian ad Litem Tracy Bernson who:  1. Made unlawful recommendations to the Court in her 2/11/11 guardian ad litem report including suspension of all visitation with his son with no findings of fact that it would be detrimental to the child and with no findings of abuse or neglect contrary to RSA 461-A:2; 2. Posited as fact the psychological condition of the minor child without being an expert herself, and with no expert psychological findings or report, and apart from any testimony that is the product of reliable principles and methods contrary to RSA 516:29-a; 3. Recommended the imposition of extrajudicial conditions on reunification contrary to RSA 461-A:2, RSA 461-A:6 and contrary to the presumption that fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children; 4. Recommended unlawful prior restraint of Petitioner’s free speech by restricting him from talking with his son about the subject of love (see RSA 461-A:6 I(a); 5. Recommended as a condition to see his son, that Petitioner enroll in a parenting class and separately in individual therapy which is contrary to the Troxel presumption that “fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children,” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57)…

Here’s the Committee’s take on Marital Master Nancy Geiger:

The Committee finds that Marital Master Nancy Geiger also contributed to this when she: 1. Conducted a hearing that affected Petitioner’s parental rights without proper judicial notice per Duclos v. Duclos, 134 NH 42 – NH: Supreme Court 1991, quoting Morphy v. Morphy, 112 N.H. 507 – NH Supreme Court 1972[1]; 2. Wrongfully recommended the suspension of Petitioner’s visitation and parental rights with no findings of abuse or neglect and no expert testimony; 3. Compelled Petitioner to finance the “therapeutic reunification” with his son in a forced contract contrary to Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43; 4. Utilized what she knew to be false and/or incomplete GAL report testimony of GAL Tracy Bernson in arriving at her decision; 5. Refused to admit Petitioner’s properly authenticated telephone logs as exhibits at trial;

What were the Marital Masters in the Manchester Family Division up to?  They “inexplicably and arbitrarily” bankrupted a fit father by ignoring the laws that would have allowed him to keep a little of his money instead of paying it to his ex as alimony.  Having themselves violated many laws, they then jailed him for his inability to pay their wrongful orders.

The Redress of Grievances Committee listened to the testimony and saw the supporting documents of a Petitioner who in the process of a divorce case found himself suffering from numerous inexplicable, and arbitrary acts at the hands of the Family Division which have not only reduced him to virtually no income to support his home family but has wrongfully jailed him for inability to pay. Despite never being adjudicated an unfit parent he has been denied all contact with his children for nearly three years without any order of the court preventing such contact in violation of his fundamental parental rights and contrary to NH RSA 461-A:6, (Best Interests of the Child); NH RSA 633:1-A and 633:3-A and 633:4, (Interference with Custody); and, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, the Committee finds that Manchester Judicial Branch Family Division Marital Master Leonard Green:  1. Made an incorrect and confiscatory order (see RSA 458-C:2 IV c) that has reduced Petitioner to near financial ruin, violating NH Child Support Guidelines, and improperly awarding unnecessary alimony per NH RSA 458:19 and 546-A:5 (Uniform Civil Liability for Support); 2. Failed to comply with NH RSA 461-A:VI a (Parental Rights and Responsibilities). (See also NH Constitution Art.35. [The Judiciary; Tenure of Office]); and 3. Failed to consider the mandatory self-support reserve in RSA 458-C IV and the support for others mandated in RSA 546-A:5(g)…

The judges have a nasty little habit of ignoring laws, rules of procedure and evidence, and then, when a father tries to protest, simply refusing to give him a hearing.  Without a hearing, there can be no transcript; without a transcript, there can be no appeal.  So in one case, they appointed a Guardian ad Litem who by law is limited to a fee not to exceed $1,000 unless she gets approval from the court following a hearing.  But the judge ignored all that.  When the GAL submitted a fee application exceeding $12,000, it was approved, the father was ordered to pay it all, and his numerous requests for a hearing were simply ignored.  And of course the judge refused the father all contact with his daughter for almost three years despite no finding of unfitness.

The Committee understands what fathers know all too well, but no one else in the state wants to admit:

[T]he resulting effect generally [has]  been court order[ed] child abuse in the denial of her access to a loved parent for the period of two years. This has become a common report before this committee:that the Family division of the court, established to protect children , actually inflicts the injury on the child itself.

That’s right, “court ordered child abuse” by the family court.  When the Committee got around to recommending action, it’s clear that the members saw the extent of the injustice that makes up so much of the daily workings of family courts in the state.  Here are a few of its recommendations.

3. introduce legislation to enable each parent in a divorce  to have the appointed GAL permanently dismissed without cause at least once. 4. Amend the statutes to allow citizens party to a case to enter into private prosecution of perjury and false swearing;

(1) Investigate Judge John Arnold for impeachment for offending the dignity and undermining the integrity of the courts and the confidence of the people, for failing to uphold the laws of the State of New Hampshire and for infringing on the natural and Constitutional rights of the petitioner; (2) Require that Rules of Evidence, Rules of Procedure, and all other Rules of the pertinent Court(s) be complied with by all judicial courts; (3) Require that all motions and petitions brought before a court of New Hampshire be docketed immediately and scheduled to be heard within six months after docketing;

4. To eliminate increases in or extensions of alimony pursuant to a final decree and when the receiving party has falsified evidence; 5. To make punishment mandatory in cases of false swearing and perjury by officers of the court in the Family Division,

4. Permit courts to deviate from equal parenting time distribution only in cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect by one or both parents or it is requested by party receiving the lesser proportion of time;

Who would think it necessary for a committee of the legislature to instruct courts of the state to follow the rules of evidence and procedure?  Who would guess that perjury and false swearing would be such a routine and accepted part of everyday court practice, or that orders would be issued with no evidence to support them?  What person walking the streets of New Hampshire would know that some of the worst violators of law are its family court judges and masters?

Fathers, that’s who.  Fathers know these things all too well, and now the members of the Committee for the Redress of Grievances know it too.

By the way, it’s noteworthy that the Committee called for the legislature to amend the state’s laws to require a presumption of shared parenting.

Thanks to David for the heads-up.

 This entry was posted on Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 at 9:08 am and is filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases, Child Support, False Accusations, Family Law/Divorce/Separation/Child Custody, Judges. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

READ MORE FROM THE SOURCE CLICK HERE

Date August 30, 2012

Dean Mason

Children need their fathers and fathers need their children.

‘What is especially alarming is the phenomenon coming to be known as fatherlessness.’

EVERY year, tens of thousands of Australian children are not able to wish their dad, or their granddad, a happy Father’s Day due to their parents being separated or divorced.

What does that tell us, that fathers who don’t see their children are ”deadbeat dads”?

In a recent case federal magistrate Tom Altobelli made some surprising admissions in awarding a mother sole custody of her two children: ”Their mother has indeed alienated them from their father … the mother’s perception of the father is based on illusion not reality … She is not being malicious or malevolent, she is quite simply shackled by a distorted frame of reality … She believes the father is a risk to the children when he is not.”

It is remarkable, and a relief, that Altobelli wrote the children a letter explaining his decision. But the isolation still felt by their father must be extreme. Many fathers – or mothers in similar situations – experience debilitating mental health issues while they work through various aspects of being a separated non-custodial parent.

Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention 2008 research shows younger men are more at risk of suicide when separated. Recent findings from the Australian Institute of Family Studies show that men experience a greater degree of loneliness and isolation compared with women after a divorce.

On a slightly brighter note, I can testify that by far the majority of non-custodial parents I meet do eventually find a balance in their life, stepping up as best they can without losing their dignity. Less often are they able to maintain a robust and healthy connection with their children.

Extreme acts by fathers wanting to redress what they consider an injustice occasionally come to our attention; Michael Fox’s 2011 Sydney Harbour Bridge protest, Ken Thompson’s 2010 cycling trip through Europe to find his son. Thompson succeeded and was able to bring his son back under the same legal rights that an Italian father is currently trying to invoke to return his daughters to Italy. In this case the mother brought them to Australia for a holiday and then refused to return them. There’s no doubt his extreme act is to survive the emotional, financial, legal, and logistical hardship that goes with fighting a somewhat bizarre court case in a foreign country.

Occasional outcries from desperate men are not to be confused with acts of violence in any form. It is painfully obvious that many men, and some women, too, commit acts of violence when under similar pressures. As a society we are doing some good things, and certainly need to do a lot more, to prevent family violence and to care more effectively for the victims who are forced to suffer in so many ways.

What is especially alarming is the phenomenon coming to be known as ”fatherlessness”. World leaders, including President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, have begun to give attention to this, but not so much to the underlying institutional pressures.

In a recent article, ”Father Absence, Father Deficit, Father Hunger”, in Psychology Today, Canadian Edward Kruk points out it is ”divorce and non-marital childbearing” that present the two greatest threats to fathers’ active involvement in children’s lives. Even when fathers have the best of intent and a genuine commitment to be an active parent, the weight of institutional processes often works against them.

With more than 50,000 families breaking up every year in Australia, this amounts to a massive annual wave of incoming children at risk of fatherlessness. Kruk observes that a string of modern-day perils such as diminished self-concept, truancy, youth crime, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, to name a few, all have ”absent father” as a prominent factor.

The institutional pressures working against children enjoying a meaningful connection with both parents need to be addressed. This Father’s Day, separated dads – and all the family, friends, professionals and agencies who support them – can be confident they are not alone as they keep demonstrating the patience, compassion and wisdom needed to live life meaningfully and non-violently through such adversity.

Gradually, this is how community awareness can grow to inform and support the legislative and procedural changes needed for a healthier post-separation environment.

Dean Mason is national chairman of Dads In Distress Support Services and author of Daddy’s OK: fathers’ stories of divorce, separation and rebuilding.

Mensline: 1300 789 978

Lifeline: 13 11 14

Beyond Blue: 1300 224 636

DIDSS support: 1300 853 437.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-happy-fathers-day-ahead–well-for-some-men-at-least-20120829-250za.html#ixzz250ea1UUl

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sole-Fathers-United-Inc/132004486811711

Sole Fathers United Inc. shared a link via Ten Late News.

48 minutes ago.

I am appalled that the assistant commissioner actual said on national television that Domestic violence is a men’s problem not women’s. Then the white ribbon rep mentioned the horrific incident where a man took the life of his family, matric
ide is 5 times higher than patricide. Really look at the statistics. Men if you have experienced domestic violence please comment on the Ten Late News post. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS AND CHILDREN… AUSTRALIA SAY’S NO!

Not only did he kidnap but apparently sexually abused him. The father was having none of that! (Shocking)

YouTube ~ Published on Apr 19, 2012 by SupportSystemDown
We created this film to expose the serious unfairness in the system in order to help effect positive change for millions of families — men, women, and children. The situation is beyond absurd. We have loving, fit fathers, who want to be there and support their children, who are unfairly prevented from doing so. On the other hand, we have men proven by DNA testing not to be the dad, yet they are forced to financially support children they may not even know and did not father.
Check out our website www.supportthemovie.com today!

 

shared their own photo.

Hi Paulie, another new day, “One Day Closer”. I know new smiles & happier days are ahead again, we just have to be patient till they come, everyday we get closer & wherever you are, no matter how many days, I won’t give up on you !!! I love you Paulie, keep hanging on till they get here ok https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=227323040720746&set=a.227068154079568.49334.140494029403648&type=3&theater

Paulie in Seattle, Sept 2009 with the Northwest Seaplane he picked out. He’s such a good boy, how can I say no : )

Linda J Gottlieb

“Reaching Higher Ground”

Stereotyping the alienating parent as “Woman” only serves to alienate professional allies and co-victims.

I have been thinking about saying this for some time, and now I’m ready to post my thoughts.

I certainly understand the pain, helplessness, and the hopelessness of all of you dedicated, loving, supportive, and heroic fathers out there who have been victimized by the PAS—-as was my father. And I certainly understand that your former female partners initiated the chain of events that have led to your desperate situations, the undermining of your relationships with your children, and frequently the complete severing of those relationships. On the other hand, I believe that when inflammatory terms such as feminist pigs, fembots, or other derogatory references to women are employed, you have the potential to alienate women who are also victimized by the PAS as well as the professional women who are on your side and are fighting the PAS voraciously, often at great risks to their professional reputations.

The reality is that no one partner in either gender—without outside professional support—- is powerful enough to defeat, marginalize, and subvert the other. As I pointed out in my book, the alienating parent is successful ONLY because they have co-opted the professionals in the mental health, child protective, matrimonial, and judicial systems. It is the confluence of the support of these professionals who embolden and empower the alienator and thereby perpetuate and deepen the PAS. Shall I tell you how many of these professionals—-particularly the judges who adjourn these cases interminably and eventually end up granting custody to the mother—-are Males? Shall I tell you how many MALE matrimonial attorneys support their alienating female client in facilitating the PAS—-all for pecuniary motivations to increase their bottom line? Shall I tell you how many MALE mental health therapists determine to rescue their client-child from the alleged abusing father because such spurious stories stimulate the male’s instinctive need to be protective—-and sometimes because it also increases their bottom line?

When someone is suffering from such severe pain as the loss of a relationship with a child, there is the instinctive reaction to seek a receptacle for the anger, and the convenient and understandable receptacle is the other parent. It is harder, if not impossible, to place one’s anger in the system. Nevertheless, the SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM. If we divert our focus and energy from where change must occur—-in an adversarial approach to child custody—-then the alienating parent will triumph. Anger serves a purpose; but I would prefer to be a change agent. It is hard to do and be both simultaneously.

And finally, I cannot conclude this post without emphasizing that more and more mothers are becoming victimized by the PAS, as were 8 of the 32 alienated parents my discussed in my book.

Alienated parents everywhere, regardless of gender, must unite and stand together to fight the scourge of the PAS. The alienators and their professional supporters outnumber us as it is. We cannot afford to alienate even one alienated parent of the female gender or even one female professional supporter.

 

For The Protection of Children World Wide, we are now launching ‘Fathers Union International’

CHILDREN 4 JUSTICE JOIN THE CAUSECLICK HERE