Posts Tagged ‘Parents rights’

child abuse, fathers rights, parental alienation, Parents rights

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Childrens Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parents rights on February 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize”

18 hours ago | Knoxville, Tennessee | Vetting explained

Posted by:
xzxeddiexzx

iReport —

The Law Perverted! Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary.

Alienation-denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity.

Child Support has nothing to do with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children.

What is most striking is that this witch hunt of zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in the national or local media.

Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a massive abuse of government power.

In recent years, a few cracks have appeared in the monolith. William Comanor writes that “child-support obligations” the only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur- “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt.” Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system “as an obvious sham” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.” “The overwhelming majority of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are judicially created,” says another attorney. “Why all this talk about so-called ‘deadbeat dads’? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.”

When one begins to research the objective data and the research of independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone, in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often at enormous personal sacrifice.

STATE REVENUE VIA CHILD SUPPORT

A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response to “deadbeat dads” than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.

Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern “for the children,” the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact, no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the agency’s existence.

Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection companies—again less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by making fathers pay more. Because most unpaid child support is due to unemployment, and because most “non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits,” according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.

Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority), guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988.

This vastly enlarged the program and transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay. With wage withholding, “the number of dollars passing through the government collection system exploded,” mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money collected.

The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem existed.

Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative,” the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002.

This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income. “Most states make a profit on their child-support program,” according to Ways and Means, which notes that “States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit.”

In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating engines for the state government.

In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs. (When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640 million. “There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system” in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. “It dances at the strings of federal money.”

To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January 2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that “the federal and state child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992.” Yet these figures are not what they appear.

In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is “legally owed but unpaid,” found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections actually decreased during this period. “In fiscal year 1996, collections represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the total amount due in fiscal year 2000,” writes GAO? “As a result the amount owed at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the period.”

These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. By Stephen Baskerville For the sole purpose to stir up concern for rights of people.

((Something needs to be done.))

Below is contributed by: xzxeddiexzx CNN I-Reporter

While the states claim they have increased the collections of unpaid child support. It does not use the actually collected figures. It only relies on the documented back child support claims of over inflated arrears unconstitutionally delivered to the non-custodial parents.

So the weight of supporting the entire welfare system lands on the backs of a selected group of American citizens that are in turn refused and denied Equal Justice under the law. They are refused the fundamental right to due process and in most cases are limited in the relationship with their very own natural and biological children.

During this new economic downturn, this very method of miscalculated, mishandled Judiciary infringement of civil and constitutional law on only a select group of society is nothing short of modern day slavery and discrimination from the Governing bodies unto the citizen taxpayers in a bias approach to assault one gender over the other. Putting parents of the children involved, at war destroying the foundation the children rely on and need to become productive members of society.

Instead of the system finding common ground and exercising equal justice under the law. They infringe on the civil and constitutional rights of a singled out group primarily (men). But cases such as mine has the female gender in the non-custodial position. But all the literature given by the State funded agencies are bias.

Painting the male gender with a bad brush. The literature does not use the terms when talking of the noncustodial parent (He / She) or (Mother / Father) etc.

It plainly says if you are having problems collecting money from HIM. We can garnish HIS wages. Issue a offset on HIS tax returns or any state funded monies.

So you see the biasness? You see how someone in my position of a unwed father with primary residential custody would find this issue insulting and discriminatory?

When will society understand that one of the primary reasons we are having the economic crisis we as a society are having today has been because of States like Tennessee that have violated public trust in a attempt to cover up the lavish spending on private and personal items on the the taxpayers money, while using the child support systems as their own personal bailout program. This is why we have the over inflated arrearages set in child support cases against the weakest party that does not have the same rights to the judiciary process as the favored party that helps them generate the funds to run the scam on society.

This is totally unconstitutional and attacks the civil liberties of a singled out group that are suppressed by not being awarded the rights that is awarded to the side that the States have taken up interest in. Which is the custodial parents because they are working together to extort money from the federal government while hiding behind the statue in the child’s best interest. These proceedings have nothing to do with the child’s interest at all. It is only the interest of the state to take any measure to fund their practice of over spending the tax dollars.

Why should we allow as a society any group to be singled out and destroyed while the evidence is clear that they would violate your rights if they stood a chance to gain a dollar from doing so.

So today it is the child support issue and once they see that they do not meet any challenge in this matter they will focus on other subjects within our communities.

I would love to hear some input about this very important issue that effects all of us citizens that pay taxes or have children of our own.

Do we not deserve to have a fair balanced Justice system?

Do we not owe our children equal protection and both parents ?

Do you think a selected group should be singled out and violated by a government either state , local or federal?

The sums they calculate for the retroactive support orders also take into account the elderly on the welfare system. I personally think that the taxes we all pay covers the cost for them to have the coverage they need. I also think that both parents should be held to 50% of the costs involved with raising the children.

If this means that the woman that retains custody can not be a full time stay at home mom because she would also have to work and fund her fair share of the obligation then there needs to be provisions that their would be shared time with the child between each others job requirements.

It took two people to create the child and bring it into this world. If they was not prepared then they both have to work harder in order to become prepared and supportive to the obligation to the child.

There are other models and methods that would be more beneficial to the child and the family structure but the government would not want to lend a ear to the results because they would not be able to manipulate the taxpayers and profit while lying to the general public and the facts about the fairness and constitutional upholding within the organized crime ring supported by the states via federal funding while the municipalities fall out of compliance with the federal rules and regulations set forth, and continue to collect the federal dollars as if they were complying…

Embedded Corruption has the Economy in greater risk of crashing. The mishandling of the critical tax dollars that so many are reliant upon are in jeopardy if reform measures are not take swiftly in this area of government corruption to restore equality unto it’s people that it is suppose to protect and serve equally without bias agendas.

The following link leads to the Social Security Administrations investigation into this very matter. The findings are correct and accurate but have increased since the study was conducted in 2006 before the economy imploded.

http://www.laryholland.com/ssacse/

Tags:

Posted in Assignment:
Breaking news

Share this on:

del.icio.us

StumbleUpon

Comments (11)

iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

xzxeddiexzx

57 minutes ago

Oh why so defensive? Did I strike a nerve?

Child support issues should never be about a GENDER!

I am taking her to court for the federal Identity theft charges and many other criminal charges. It has been a long time coming, but I am committed to seeing it through to…

1 hour ago

Thentake the mother to court. For every deadbeat mother there are several deadbeat fathers. Your report is biased by your own personal experience.

As the sole custodial parent of your child you should learn to spell.

Report violation

xzxeddiexzx

1 hour ago

SAD but when you file for Child Support. You waive your right as a parent. You place the child’s needs at the mercy of the greedy self serving Government Agencies that place your child’s basic needs last on the list of priorities.

The state is more focused on generating revenue for the general fund by jailing as many non-custodial parents…

2 hours ago

Studies show statistics show a 70% increase of MOTHERS losing custody due to DRUG AND ALCOHOL dependency and neglect and abandonment of the child’s needs.

You can sit here and be bias all you want but the truth is coming out. The facts show that there is just as many women neglecting their families as there are men doing the same.

2 hours ago

Geonite,

You have the wrong idea! I AM THE SOUL CUSTODIAL PARENT. The child lives with me 100% of the time and I take really good care of her needs.

The biological MOTHER does not want to pay her responsibility to the child. She has also used my daughter SS# on her…

4 hours ago

Few fathers ditch their children? Ridiculous!!!! See how many women a day file for child support because the man won’t pay.

Whatever the reason is, there’s no reason for a parent to not pay for their childrens needs. I don’t care if it’s foster care or their care. Children need to be fed and clothed and sent to school. Either way it costs…

11 hours ago

With job losses by measured by the millions and increasing daily. Do we really need to be stereotyping a entire class of citizens because of lack of employment options and a weak sufficient minimum wage with the cost of living keeps raising?

Do we really need to suppress the rights of a individual in order to empower one gender over the…

Do we really need to suppress the rights of a individual in order to empower one gender over the other? What about the constitution and it’s protection to ALL U.S. citizens being violated at state and local levels and funded by the federal government?

The right to be a parent encompasses the fundamental rights that apply to both Natural and Biological parents, not just one gender over the other!

For a Federal Government branch to violate any of the fundamental rights of the constitution is a ACT Of Treason upon it’s citizens. ((A tyranny))

That as the Economy worsens will result in a revolt of those effected, men, women and children.

There are far more people effected by this flaw of government justice than there is (TEA PARTIERS).

The last census study showed 32 million people in the united states have been effected by this trend of overreached government in federally funded state imposed child support programs nation wide.

This means, the new census study being conducted this year will show by collected data of that number increasing by an alarming rate.

This means I am the voice of concern for more than 36 million Americans calling for Child Support Reform and the restoration of fundamental rights to parent your children to both natural and Biological parts that are involved in their child’s life.

I am a primary custodial father. I just went to child support court yesterday. The noncustodial parent has not paid a dime in 4 years and well over $8000 in debt! The court told me yesterday that if they jailed everyone that was in violation of the court orders, the system would run out of funding in less than a month.

So I personally asked them: “So you are telling me that I can go out here and violate the law and not have to worry about going to jail even if I am caught”? We both ended up walking out of court yesterday. So does this say anything to you?

See I am the soul provider and caregiver to my child, and I am fighting for the rights of the noncustodial parents and the custodial parents as well. For the betterment of children and improving the quality of life for all involved.

Less

Report violation

xzxeddiexzx

12 hours ago

Or mothers, But the arrears that is set so high in courts go tot he General fund. Not the children involved….

They make parents criminals because of this very fact..

Report violation

WIparent

15 hours ago

Most of the debtors have done nothing to incur? Really, how did they become fathers, then?

Report violation

xzxeddiexzx

17 hours ago

Check this link out? http://nationwideblueprint.com

Report violation

TheVideoMan

18 hours ago

True!

Report violation

// <![CDATA[// // <![CDATA[//

What is iReport?

Share

Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what’s important to you.
Discuss

Join the conversation on the day’s big issues.
Be heard

The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.

iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the “CNN” badge. MORE…

// <![CDATA[//

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, fathers rights, Parents rights

Australian Dads ‘not entitled to shared parenting’ | Herald Sun

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, parental rights, Parents rights on January 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm

Caroline Overington
From: The Australian
January 28, 2010 4:23PM

SEPARATED fathers are not entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children, and legislation introduced by the Howard government in 2006 should be amended to make that clear, a report says.

A 300-report by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm recommends five changes to the so-called “shared parenting” law, which he described as a “tangle” that had taken the focus off “what is best for the children,” The Australian reports.

The hotly anticipated Chisholm report, which was ordered by Attorney-General Robert McClelland after the shocking death of Melbourne girl Darcey Freeman, who was thrown to her death from the West Gate Bridge last year, says the shared parenting law has made it difficult for women to raise allegations of violence in the Family Court system.

A separate, 1000-page report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, also released this afternoon, says the majority of lawyers now believe that the 2006 reforms favour fathers over mothers, and parents over children.

The two reports into shared parenting – plus a third report, by the Family Law Council – were released simultaneously by Mr McClelland this afternoon.

Mr McClelland said the Government would review all reports before making changes but agreed that a false idea had taken hold in the community that fathers were entitled to a 50-50 time split.

“How we address that is what we’ve now got to decide,” he said.

Dads ‘not entitled to shared parenting’ | Herald Sun.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Divorce, Family Court Reform, Marriage, Parents rights

False Allegations, Dishonest Tactics, What Does A Honest Parent To Do?

In Activism, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Marriage, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Restraining Orders on December 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm

False Allegations, Dishonest Tactics, What Does A Honest Parent To Do?

By: Ed Brooks

via False Allegations, Dishonest Tactics, What Does A Honest Parent To Do?.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Parents rights

Part II: The State Preference for Splitting up Families Using the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ | Glenn Sacks on MND

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, family court, Family Rights, fathers rights, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Protective Dads, Restraining Orders on December 1, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Part II: The State Preference for Splitting up Families Using the ‘Best Interests of the Child’

Saturday, November 28, 2009

By Robert Franklin, Esq.

As I said in my previous post on the “best interests of the child,” the authors of the 1973 book, “Beyond the Best Interests of the Child” were so shocked at its misuse by courts, child welfare agencies and adoption agencies, that they wrote another book in 1979 to correct the misinterpretations.

There they clearly stated that the best interests of the child were presumptively served by maintaining intact families unless certain extreme things had occurred. Those things were the death, incarceration or incapacity of a parent, divorce and custody matters, request by a parent to terminate their rights, sexual abuse of a child by a parent, serious bodily injury done to a child by a parent, repeated injury done to a child by a parent and the refusal by the parents to authorize lifesaving medical care for the child. Period. According to the authors, no other situation warranted state intrusion into parental care of children.

Would anyone care to guess which book is cited time and again as authority by appellate courts, and which book is virtually ignored? California civil rights attorney Catherine Campbell wrote in 2000 that “little notice was taken” of the authors’ second book in which they strove mightily to stop their first book’s being used to take children from parents. It’s message, Campbell added “was not what child abuse crusaders wanted to hear, and it was not heard.” Indeed. The same year as her article, I did a Lexis/Nexis search of state and federal appellate court opinions. Goldstein, Freud and Solnit’s first book had been cited 279 times versus 46 times for their second.

Campbell pointed out that those adults and children who are most abused by the “best interests of the child” are overwhelmingly poor. They are the most apt to be found wanting as parents and least able to combat the system of child removal and placement that Campbell called “a form of legalized kidnapping.”

Come to think of it, the New Mexico case I sketched in my first post on this topic involved a man who was poor – he was a laborer. The fact that he provided for his children and loved and cared for them, and ultimately did everything in his power to stop the adoption train that inexorably took his child from him, mattered little. As always, state power is wielded most savagely against those least able to oppose it.

And in the arena of family courts and child welfare agencies, among the relatively powerless must be counted fathers. That’s not because fathers are necessarily poor; of course they’re not. Fathers aren’t necessarily poor in money, but in family court, they are poor in what matters at least as much – rights. The range of methods used to separate fathers from their children is truly astonishing, and often enough justified by “the best interests of the child.”

Should a father be informed about the adoption of his child? No, the child is better off with its adoptive parents. If he finds out about the adoption and tries to stop it (as in the New Mexico case), he’ll find the child already placed with the new parents and thus its “best interests” lie with them, not him. Should the dad be notified before his child is placed in foster care? Not so much; only about half of them are. What if Mom concealed her pregnancy from him until months or even years later, can he get custody? Probably not, because, well you know, the child would be upset by a new adult entering its life so, sorry Dad. What about a plain vanilla divorce and custody case? Can he get primary custody? Not likely; just 16% of dads in the United States manage that.

But who’s griping? It’s all in the child’s best interests, right?

Back to Goldstein, Freud and Solnit, though. Here‘s a case that, as the article shows, warrants little comment (Dallas Morning News, 11/27/09). A man and his wife have a “history” of drug use. He walked into a bakery with their baby in a car seat, placed the child on a table, ordered and walked out without the baby. Now, no one would argue that that’s appropriate childcare. Obviously it’s not. But the question the authors want us to ask is this: “Is it behavior that warrants taking the child from its parents in favor of foster care?” After all,

[T]o acknowledge that some parents…may threaten the well-being of their children is not to suggest that state legislatures, courts or administrative agencies can always offer such children something better…By its intrusion the state may make a bad situation worse; indeed, it may turn a tolerable or even a good stiuation into a bad one.”

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 28th, 2009 at 6:37 pm and is filed under blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 176 views | Trackback | Print this page || More from Robert Franklin, Esq.

Stumble It!

Part II: The State Preference for Splitting up Families Using the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ | Glenn Sacks on MND.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Parents rights

The ‘Best Interests of the Child’ Concept – Misused from the Beginning | Glenn Sacks on MND

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, fathers rights, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Restraining Orders on November 30, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Saturday, November 28, 2009

By Robert Franklin, Esq.

Even the casual observer of family law and practice can be struck by the astonishing, er, flexibility of the term “best interests of the child.” For example, in 1995, a New Mexico court approved of the outright theft of a child by an adoption agency and his subsequent placement with an adoptive couple as in the “best interests of the child.”

The boy had lived with the mother and father for all his year and a half of life. One weekend when the father was out of town working, the mother took the child to the adoption agency, lied about the father’s whereabouts and gave the child up for adoption. Two days later, the father informed the adoption agency that he had no intention of giving up the child. But the agency kept the child with the adoptive parents anyway and let the glacial pace of the judicial system do the rest.

A year and a half later, the child was deemed to have “bonded” with the adoptive parents and the father was out of luck. The “best interests of the child,” you understand, meant that breaking those new bonds was impermissible. At the same time, the “best interests of the child” did permit breaking the bonds between the father and the child. That’s what I mean when I say the concept is “flexible.”

The conduct of the mother and the agency violated New Mexico civil law, and the father sued them and won a judgment for monetary damages. Those damages were never paid as the agency receded behind the impenetrable veil of bankruptcy.

Given the mutability of the ‘best interests’ standard, it’s interesting to know a little of its history. In 1973, Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud and Albert Solnit published a book that would have enormous influence on family courts and child protective agencies nationwide, albeit not the one they intended. They were, respectively, a law professor at Yale, a child psychologist and a researcher at the Child Study Center at Yale. Their book was entitled “Beyond the Best Interests of the Child.” It was an effort to guide courts and placement agencies that had to decide issues of family dissolution and child custody about how best to do that.

But by 1979, the same authors were so horrified at the misuse of their book by those very courts and child protective agencies that they wrote another one entitled “Before the Best Interests of the Child.”

With their first book, they meant well; they truly didn’t anticipate the distortions to which judges, social workers and child welfare agencies would subject its message. In it, they were dealing only with cases in which a family had already broken down and required intervention by the state to protect the children. The authors limited their discussion to that. The “best interests of the child” concept was discussed solely as a goal to be obtained after family breakdown.

But the courts and other state agencies had no intention of limiting their use of the book’s concepts in the same way the authors did. In direct contradiction to the authors’ intentions, states began using the “best interests of the child” concept to achieve family breakdown by state intervention and removal of the children.

That’s what horrified the authors and prompted them to publish “Before the Best Interests of the Child” in 1979. Here’s what they said:

[W]e believe that a child’s need for continuity of care by autonomous parents requires acknowledging that parents should generally be entitled to raise their children as they think best, free of state interference. This conviction finds expression in our preference for minimum state intervention and prompts restraint in defining justifications for coercively intruding on family relationships…

So long as a child is a member of a functioning family, his paramount interest lies in the preservation of his family. Thus our preference for making a child’s interests paramount is not to be construed as a justification in and of itself for intrusion. (Emphasis in the original.)

I’ll write a bit more on this later, but remember what the authors said: the child’s “paramount interests lies in the preservation of his family.”

It’s a concept that escaped the New Mexico courts back in 1995, even as it continues to escape so many today.

How to Win Shared Custody
Here are the litigation secrets to winning shared physical & legal custody from Boston trial lawyer Nick Palermo, Esquire who has won these cases for 24 years. It costs $5,000 or more in legal fees to gain the knowledge and guidance contained in this $10 handbook–The Ten Essential Elements to Winning Joint Shared Physical and Legal Custody. www.TenEssentialElements.com

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pm and is filed under blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 226 views | Trackback | Print this page || More from Robert Franklin, Esq.

Stumble It!

The ‘Best Interests of the Child’ Concept – Misused from the Beginning | Glenn Sacks on MND.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Divorce, family civil rights, fathers rights, mothers rights, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, parenting, Parents rights

Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on August 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm

SUPPORT THE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT OF 2009

Many poor fathers are shut out of the lives of their children because the family court system puts profits over children and parents. The majority of these fathers are homeless, but the public has this skewed perception that these fathers are taking five vacation trips per year, driving fast cars, have a trophy girl friend, and could care less about their children who are straving and momma is trying to scrape every penny together to feed them.

In 2006, then Senator Barrack Obama sponsored the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act which failed miserably. The contributions of fathers are grossly ignored by the media unless it is someone like Michael Jackson. We seriously need change in putting fathers at an equal level as mothers when it comes to raising children.

We need to make serious changes and get rid of bad laws that hurt families and children.

Attorney Andrew J. Thompson writes about what we need in order to have true responsible fatherhood:

https://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/responsible-fatherhood-and-healthy-families-family-law-and-fathers/

Equality in Parenting: while parents’ roles will always differ, both parents matter deeply to every child, and on the whole, their roles should be valued equally and with an equality of balance. When parents separate, divorce, and act as single parents, each parent should be responsible for roughly equal shares of financial and parenting time responsibilities. This equality should be recognized under the law. The father who is willing to bear his share of each of these responsibilities should be honored and acknowledged, and his role and time with the children should not be inhibited by the family courts.

Support Enforcement: while covering a relatively equal share of his children’s financial support is part and parcel to fatherhood and will always be expected of fathers, current child support standards are far too onerous and unfairly burdensome to fathers. The federal government plays a role in support regulation today and productive reforms can be made in the law as follows:

Repeal the Bradley Amendment: Fathers who have been alienated from their children, perhaps have not seen them for 5,10 or 20 years, should not be forced to pay support to the mother. The Bradley Amendment has created a situation where we have billions of dollars of uncollectible child support over the past 20 years, and it is time for its repeal.
Title IV-D Funding: Under current law, states are rewarded with federal funds based on the amount of support they collect. This creates an incentive in the system to create unreasonably high support guidelines and calculations, set inappropriately high support awards, and deploy draconian enforcement methods that force many, good fathers to live in poverty or near poverty conditions. States should receive federal funding focusing directly and solely on those cases where collection is achievable (actual resources are shown to be available), and there is a history of continuing dereliction and lack of cooperation on the part of the parent obligated for support.
Imputation of Income: Not even the IRS can arbitrarily impute an income against which it may levy charges, yet nearly every state permits this practice in determining the amount of support a father will have to pay. This practice defies the principles underlying many of our Constitutional rights. No state should be allowed to receive any federal funding as long as it allows for this practice.
Sanctions/Imprisonment: There are many jurisdictions nationally where more than 10% of the prison/jail population is made up of fathers who are unable to pay support. This runs contrary to the purpose of the laws themselves, as it prevents from earning the income necessary to do what the law is expecting of him. The law should prohibit any parent who is willing to work and pay support from being jailed for non-payment of support, and parents responsible for support should be given a preference in professional and other licensing that may be necessary in order to earn the income to pay support.
Garnishments: While other creditors are limited to garnishing 25% of an individual’s income, child support agencies can collect up to 65% – 65% of a low or mid-income wage, leaves the person completely unable to meet any other obligations, even the most basic. Garnishments for support should be limited to 25%, consistent with otehr creditors.

Domestic Violence Issues: domestic violence is a very serious crime and should always be treated as such. Allegations of domestic violence should result in appropriate protection for the victim with appropriate sanctions. Children should not suffer alienation from a parent, they should not be punished for the actions of the parent.

Here is some info on the Act:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1309/show

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070801-76

Share and Enjoy:

Posted on July 10th, 2009 by Semper Fi

Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally.

▶ View 1 Comment

Childrens Rights, Parents rights, UK Children Rights, UNCRC

Children’s Rights Alliance for England – Rights of the Child UK – Rock coalition

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, UNCRC, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on August 12, 2009 at 5:00 am

Rights of the Child UK – Rock coalition

CRAE has formed a UK-wide coalition with major charities and children’s rights activists calling on the Government to make the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) part of UK law. The coalition is called Rights of the Child UK (Rock).

Rock coalition members

The Rock coalition’s member organisations are: the British Humanist Association, the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE), the Fatherhood Institute, the National Youth Advocacy Service, the National Youth Agency, NCB, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), Scope, Save the Children UK, Sefton Voices and Unicef UK. A list of our individual supporters is available upon request.

Why make the UNCRC part of our national law?

We believe that incorporation of the UNCRC into our domestic law would be the best way to achieve rights protection for children in all areas of their lives, regardless of their circumstances or setting. Eighteen years after the Convention was ratified by the UK, and following the withdrawal last year of two significant reservations, we believe incorporation is long overdue.

To find out more, download Katy Swaine’s presentation to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children at their 2 June meeting.

Coalition meeting in Edinburgh on Monday 13 July

We held our most recent quarterly meeting in Edinburgh on Monday 13 July, at which we heard from Joanna Mackenzie of the Scottish Government Children’s Rights Unit and Laura Paton from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, as well as child rights activists and experts and representatives from NGOs, about the debate in Scotland on making the CRC part of national law. We are grateful to Save the Children Scotland for hosting this event. A note of the meeting will be posted on this page shortly.

Our next quarterly meeting will be held in Belfast in October. Details will be posted here in due course. All quarterly meetings are open to non-members.

The coalition’s response to the UK Government’s proposals for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

In March 2009 the UK Government published a Green Paper on a future Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The coalition for UNCRC incorporation welcomes the Government’s placing of children at the heart of the Green Paper, and its recognition of the UNCRC as a crucial instrument to achieve change for children. However, we believe the Government must go much further.

The UK Government has expressed a strong vision to make this country the best place in the world for children to grow up. We believe this can only be achieved by making the UNCRC part of UK law, bringing it within the reach of all children in the UK regardless of their circumstances or setting. The proposed Bill of Rights and Responsibilities presents a unique opportunity to make this happen.

The Government has taken important steps in this Green Paper by recognising the need to foster greater respect for children and young people in UK society and by explicitly acknowledging children as rights holders, as well as drawing attention to the responsibility of wider society towards children. The Government has also crucially emphasised the importance of ensuring that children’s existing rights remain in place – including those protected under the Human Rights Act – and that any new measures build on these safeguards.

However, we are disappointed that the UK Government has not set out any plans to incorporate the UNCRC into UK law, nor to create any new enforceable rights for children. We also remain concerned about the UK Government’s proposals for more explicit links between rights and responsibilities, the implications of which still do not have appear to have been fully thought through.

The UK Government is right to put children at the heart of its plans. However, if it is to have any chance of creating the best place in the world for children to grow up, it must do much more. We look forward to the continuing debate.

Find out more

Read the Rock coalition’s terms of reference here. For more information or to join the coalition, contact Katy Swaine

Children’s Rights Alliance for England – Rights of the Child UK – Rock coalition.

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Divorce, due process rights, family civil rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, parental rights, Parents rights

The Penny King’s Open Letter to Teri Stoddard of Concord California – Associated Content 1

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children criminals, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Teri C. Stoddard, Teri Stoddard on July 29, 2009 at 6:13 pm

July 12, 2009 by

Alex S. Gabor

Family Rights and Shared Parenting Advocate Called on Carpet for Carping Criticism of Children’s and Fathers Rights Article!

“I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough… ” Teri Stoddard at Associated Content
in a comment to Alex S. Gabor on an article related to a $100 Billion Fathers and Children’s Rights Class Action Lawsuit Being Developed by “The Penny King.

She writes about children, mothers, fathers, child custody, family law reform, families, parents rights, civil rights, parental alienation, false accusations, domestic violence policy reform, but so far has only published 18 articles, has less than a handful of friends, and by posting some negative comments about an article written by this author, it has triggered the following letter from the Penny King which I, his exclusive scribe have written out for the general public to read as a matter of historical record.

“I see you being an activist but highly ineffective…prove me wrong, please!

“Children deserve fully functioning, natural, loving, dedicated relationships with both of their parents, I infinitely agree with you, but where is the balance between father’s rights, mother’s rights, children’s rights, human rights and humanocracy?

“Justice is about balancing life to serve us with equal rights and you have to admit the scales have been tipped in the wrong weighting toward denying children their rights to see their fathers, denying fathers their rights to see their children, and the subsequent consequence of denying more than one person their human rights in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, except that women somehow have managed to convince the court systems in America that have penis leads to less than a humanocratic system of parental and children’s rights.

In response to her cutting remarks,”The Penny King” sent her the following text privately but he has given me permission to publish this response here online at Associated Content.

The Penny King’s Open Letter to Teri Stoddard of Concord California – Associated Content.

————————————————————————

Maybe you don’t know about my single parent group with over 6800 members, where I have single-handedly taught man-hating women the truth about marginalized fathers. They tell me themselves that I have opened their eyes. Guess you haven’t read any of my articles about Karl Hindle and the corruption in the State Dept that kept him from protecting his daughter, who is now blind in one eye. There’s this thing called google…since you know my name…use it. Good writers do their research before they start typing.

Add a Comment

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:17 PM

teri stoddard

You think my work is useless? Tell that to the father in Australia who I saved from suicide. I put his story on Blogcritics. Tell it to the father in northern California who recently took down the website that outlined his plans to commit suicide, after I put him in touch with a local activist who gave him hope. Funny, I don’t remember seeing you in Sacramento in 2005 when I testified for the CA Shared Parenting bill. Nor did I see you the day I lobbied for the bill with CA parents, including a widow whose husband killed himself after a judge refused to reunite him with his daughters, even after admitting the courts had made the mistake of not recognizing the parental alientation that had gone on for 10 years. Maybe you need to step away from your computer and get a new hobby. Because you’ve really lost touch with reality. And let’s get real here… who are you to decide if a writer is helping anyone or not? You don’t know anything about me except what you see on AC. Bet you

Add a Comment

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:53 PM

teri stoddard

I suggest that you stop writing libelous comments. Funny how there is no link to these imaginary comments you say that I wrote. I have never, and would never write that being fatherless leads to being gay. Where the hell did you get that idea? As far as how many articles I have on AC, is this some sort of popularity contest? Try googling my name. I write on examiner.com, my own blogs and on many other online publications, not just AC. Find someone else to lie about, because I won’t put up with it. You now have no credibility.

Add a Comment

Posted on 07/12/2009 at 8:07:21 PM

Teri Stoddard – A Legend in Her Own Mind!

▶ Comment

Civil Rights, fathers rights, mothers rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment on July 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm

New CoSponsors in the House – and Senate!

This morning, in conjunction with Representative Hoekstra’s office, we proudly sent out the following press release:

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

Grassroots Movement behind Effort to Ensure Parents’ Rights to Raise their Children

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE / July 27, 2009 / Washington, D.C. – A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, has reached 110 co-sponsors in the House.

“More and more members of Congress are recognizing the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship,” Hoekstra said. “I encourage my colleagues to support the initiative by co-sponsoring the Parents’ Rights Amendment.”

The Parental Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parental rights in our federal courts.

“Just about every member of Congress agrees with the legal principle that parents have the fundamental right to make decisions for the upbringing of their children,” said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. “Because of international law and shifting judicial philosophies, the right is being steadily undermined. We now have 110 members of Congress with the foresight to say that we need to protect this long-standing right before the erosion goes too far. We appreciate the leadership of Pete Hoekstra and the 109 other members of Congress who believe that it is important to secure the rights of American families for generations to come.”

More information on the Parental Rights Amendment can be viewed at http://www.parentalrights.org.

More Good News

In addition, we also received word that Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has signed on as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 16, the Parental Rights Amendment in the Senate. This brings our total in the Senate to three (3) – a slow but important start.

While there is no way to track the direct effects of your calls and emails and our visits last week, it is safe to assume that at least some of these cosponsors would not have signed on before the summer break without this contact. When we visited Congress last week, everyone we spoke to was already aware of the Amendment – a major change from just four months ago! Our thanks and congratulations to you for your efforts to bring this vital issue to the attention of your Senators and Congressmen. With help like yours, we will win!

▶ Comment

Childrens Rights, Divorce, Parents rights

Commentary: Let’s end disposable marriage – CNN.com

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Divorce, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Freedom, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on July 2, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Commentary: Let’s end disposable marriage

By Leah Ward Sears
Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Leah Ward Sears stepped down this week as Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. In 1992, she became the first woman — and youngest person — appointed to Georgia’s highest court.

Leah Ward Sears, with her brothers William Thomas (Tommy) Sears, left, and Michael Sears.

1 of 2

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) — After Tommy’s sudden death, we found among my brother’s personal effects a questionnaire he had completed in 2005 for a church class.

The very first question was a fill-in-the-blank that went like this: “At the end of my life, I’d love to be able to look back and know I’d done something about …..”

“Fathers,” Tommy wrote.

When asked to identify something that angered him that could be changed, Tommy wrote, “Re-establishment of equity and balance and sanity within the American family.”

My brother was born to be a father, and he grew into a good and loving one. Tommy was tall and handsome, smart, witty and fun. A graduate of the Naval Academy and a Stanford-educated lawyer, he married and fathered a little girl and boy who were the center of his life.

Tommy felt that one of the worst problems in our country today was family breakdown and fatherlessness. He railed against intentional unwed childbearing and the ease with which divorce was possible. He didn’t like that we have become a society that values the rights of adults to do their own thing over our responsibility to protect our children.

As a judge I have long held a front row seat to the wreckage left behind by our culture of disposable marriage and casual divorce that my brother so despised.

Don’t Miss

No-fault divorce was a response to a very real problem. The social and legal landscape that preceded it largely prevented casual divorce, but it often trapped people in abusive marriages. It also turned divorces into even uglier affairs than they are today, forcing people to expose in court damaging information about their children’s other parent. That system was intolerable, and we should never go back to that.

But no-fault divorce’s broad acceptance as an unquestioned social good helped usher in an era that fundamentally altered the seriousness with which marriage is viewed. It effectively ended marriage as a legal contract since either party can terminate it, with or without cause. This leaves many people struggling to remake their lives after painful divorces that they do not want. It also left many parents cut off from, or sidelined in, the lives of the children they love.

When Tommy divorced, as in so many cases, a bitter struggle over resources and the children ensued. My brother came to believe that the legal system turned him into a mere visitor of his children.

Tommy eventually accepted a job as a lawyer for the State Department and went to Iraq (and later to Dubai) in order to make the money needed to support his children. Being in a war zone, under terrible conditions without the children he loved, was unbearable to him.

On November 5, 2007, my phone rang before daybreak. A U.S. Foreign Service officer was on the other line. Was I the sister of William Thomas Sears?

I knew before I was told what had happened. Tommy had died. But the cause took my breath away: My brother had taken his own life.

I know I’ll never understand fully all that factored into his decision to kill himself. No doubt Tommy was wrestling with more demons than he had ever admitted to me or knew himself. But as a divorcee myself and, for a number of years, a single parent, I know the immense pain of divorce and its aftermath. The limitations the law placed on Tommy’s right to raise his own children after his divorce magnified my brother’s pain and was, I believe, more than he could live with.

Tommy was only 53 when he committed suicide. That was more than a year ago, and I am still learning to live without him and live with the fact that this man I looked up to all my life chose to end his own life.

Tommy’s loss has catapulted me even farther down a path I was already on. This may sound like heresy, but I believe the United States and a host of Western democracies are engaged in an unintended campaign to diminish the importance of marriage and fatherhood. By refusing to do everything we can to stem the rising rate of divorce and unwed childbearing, our country often isolates fathers (and sometimes mothers) from their children and their families.

Of course, there are occasions when divorce is necessary. And not everyone should marry. But it has become too easy for people to walk away from their families and commitments without a real regard for the gravity of their decision and the consequences for other people, particularly children.

Removing no-fault divorce as a legal option may not be the right way to move forward, and the solutions we need may not be entirely legal in nature. But answers must be found. The coupling and uncoupling we’ve become accustomed to undermines our democracy, destroys our families and devastates the lives of our children, who are not as resilient as we may wish to think. The one-parent norm, which is necessary and successful in many cases, nevertheless often creates a host of other problems, from poverty to crime, teen pregnancy and drug abuse.

The loss of my brother has changed my life, as these losses so often do to people. This summer, after 26 years, I’m hanging up my robe as a judge to return to private practice.

I will spend some of my time teaching a course in family law at the University of Georgia Law School. And I have accepted a fellowship at the Institute of American Values in New York — a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that contributes intellectually to strengthening families and civil society in the United States and the world.

At my request, the fellowship is named after my brother. As the William Thomas Sears Distinguished Fellow in Family Law, perhaps now I can truly do “something about fathers” — a mission I’m on for Tommy and a critical calling for all of us.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Leah Ward Sears.

via Commentary: Let’s end disposable marriage – CNN.com.

▶ View 1 Comment

fathers rights, Foster CAre Abuse, mothers rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights, state crimes

NCCPR Child Welfare Blog: Another reporter suckered by the myths of Mary Ellen (and an amazing number of other myths as well)

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, custody, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on June 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Another reporter suckered by the myths of Mary Ellen (and an amazing number of other myths as well)

It’s been nearly 20 years since my book about child welfare, Wounded Innocents was published (Prometheus Books, 1990, 1995). I began the chapter about the history of American child welfare with an attempt to debunk one of the most enduring, and pernicious, myths in the field. In fact, one might call it the creation myth of the entire modern child welfare establishment.

The mountain of myth is built upon a molehill of truth about Mary Ellen Wilson, a little girl who lived in New York City in the 1870s, who was repeatedly and brutally beaten. In court she testified to beatings by her “Mamma.”

The first myth propounded by America’s “child savers,” as they proudly called themselves in the 19^th Century, is that it required the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to intervene and seek protection of Mary Ellen as an animal.

To this day, I wrote in Wounded Innocents,

Child savers point to the case of Mary Ellen as a prime example of what life for children would be like without them. The case teaches us, they say, that parents cannot be allowed to control their children like property and that massive intervention is essential to protect “children’s rights.”

But if you know the real story of Mary Ellen, using it to justify the current system of massive coercive intervention into families becomes impossible.

For starters, though the head of the local SPCA did indeed call the case to the attention of the court, he did so as a prominent private citizen, not in his official capacity – and not by suggesting that Mary Ellen be protected as an animal.

But even more important, there’s one vital part of the story the child savers, and the credulous reporters who love the Mary Ellen myth, almost always leave out:

Mary Ellen was a foster child.

The “mamma” who did her so much harm was her foster mother. Mary Ellen had been taken from her real mamma and placed with her abuser by the New York Board of Charities – which then failed to monitor her care.

As I wrote in the book:

The real lessons of Mary Ellen concern the inability of the state to be an effective parent, the risks of abuse in foster care, and the need to help parents – like Mary Ellen’s real “mamma” – take care of their children. In short, the lesson of Mary Ellen is the lesson every doctor is taught in medical school: First, do no harm.

But a few inconvenient facts aren’t going to quash a myth with such powerful visceral appeal – one that panders to all our middle-class rescue fantasies at once. So every generation of young, journalists seems to embrace it all over again. (And they’re not alone, even one of the best reporters ever to cover these issues fell for this one, long ago.)

The latest example turned up earlier this year. I’m not going to name the reporter or the paper since there’s no reason to pick on one, earnest, well-meaning reporter when so many have been fooled. But it was a classic. For her one and only identified source, the reporter relied on a local real estate agent and fiction writer who’d co-authored a book that accepted all the Mary Ellen mythology at face value. Based on this, the reporter declared that

Indeed, the head of an animal protection group helped rescue a child in the 1874 case that ignited the child protection movement. Advocates argued she deserved at least the rights of an animal. [The real estate agent/author] … said children were viewed as property and “it was about not interfering between a parent and a child.” Uneasiness about government interference in families endured.

The reporter then turns to the local judge, whose comments over the years to not suggest overwhelming insight, but someone regarded by the local paper as wiser than Solomon himself. The judge tells the reporter that, in the reporter’s words,

“liberty interests led to parents being allowed to raise children largely how they saw fit until as recently as the early 1970s.”

Absolutely none of this is true. Mary Ellen’s foster mother was convicted of felonious assault, not animal cruelty. New York City’s first statute against child abuse dates to 1833. By 1874 thousands of New York City children, whose parents’ primary crimes had been being poor and being immigrants, already had been taken from those parents and shipped out to the south and Midwest on so-called “orphan trains” – even though many of them were not orphans. And by the early 1970s, there were hundreds of thousands of children trapped in foster care on any given day.

Most important, of course, that little detail about Mary Ellen being a foster child is nowhere to be found in the reporter’s account.

But it’s how the reporter defended her account that would, I am sure, make at least one of my former journalism professors roll over in his grave. It’s true, she wrote on the newspaper’s website, because the American Humane Association says so. You know – American Humane, the animal rights group with a child saving arm – the close cousin of the SPCA. This is, of course, like saying “I know what the candidate said about his economic plan is true because his campaign office vouched for every word!” or “I know the drug is safe because the drug company flack told me so!”

But the mythology and hype didn’t end with Mary Ellen. In fact, when it comes to misinformation-per-column-inch, this story is hard to top.

For instance, in keeping with the “we-treat-animals-better-than-children” theme, there’s the return of this old chestnut: “Foster care board rates … are less than what it often costs to board a dog…” I dealt with that one in this previous post to the Blog.

And there are two big errors right in the lead, which reads: “More than 300 abused and neglected children lack voices in … County court. There are not enough volunteers.”

Error number one: Just because a child has been brought to court – and even just because a child is in foster care does not mean that child is abused and neglected. It may mean only that a caseworker thinks the child may be abused and neglected and a judge is allowing the government to hold that child in foster care while everyone tries to find out. Saying that every child in foster care is “abused and neglected” is like saying everyone sitting in a jail is a criminal. Some are. But others are awaiting trial because they can’t make bail.

The second error is the claim that those volunteer advocates are a voice for the child. They are not. In this state, as in most, the advocates advocate for whatever they think is best. If the child happens to agree, then the child has a voice. But if the child wants to go home and the advocate thinks it is in that child’s “best interests” to remain in foster care (or if the child wants to stay in foster care and the advocate wants the child to go home) the child has no voice. Whether or not one believes this is as it should be (and I certainly don’t) this is simply a blatant error of fact – one of many in a story riddled with misinformation and mythology.

Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 8:53 PM

NCCPR Child Welfare Blog: Another reporter suckered by the myths of Mary Ellen (and an amazing number of other myths as well).

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", children rights, Civil Rights, Federal Laws, Parents rights, state crimes, State Laws, Supreme Court

American Civil Liberties Union : U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

In Best Interest of the Child, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, Freedom, Liberty on June 27, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Ruling In ACLU Case Is Vindication of Students’ Constitutional Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. “Today’s ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court’s conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced.”

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding’s classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate’s accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.

Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding’s parents prior to conducting the strip search.
In response to today’s ruling, Redding said, “I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court’s decision. I’m glad to have helped make students feel safer in school.”

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today’s Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.

“Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search,” said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU’s national Legal Director. “Today’s ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point.”

The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.

In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.

Today’s decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html

The ACLU’s brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40033prs20090625.html

American Civil Liberties Union : U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional.

▶ Comment

Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, court corruption, court reform, due process rights, family civil rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, judicial corruption, parental alienation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights

Mediation – Allow the Child to Love the Other Parent

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes on June 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm

The message is: allow the child to love the other parent.

How and Why the UK Ministry of Justice ‘Monitoring Publicly Funded Mediation. Summary Report to the Legal Services Commission’ showed failure in mediation programs and why mothers, the “primary parents” were allowed to continue to keep the children away from the father:

She tells the class: “If parents are cordial and businesslike in taking care of the children’s needs, the children will do fine. But if there’s conflict, using the children as pawns, putting them in the middle, no communication or inappropriate communication, what you’re doing is beating on the children’s wounds. You’re not allowing the child any opportunity to heal.”

Armed with that information, parents go on to a mandatory session with a mediator, usually one and a half hours, to try to reach agreement on a parenting plan.

The mediator sees both parents together, then each separately, and finally together again to try to hammer out a final parenting-time schedule. They have a 10-day cooling off period to change their minds before the agreement is turned into an enforceable court order.

There is a presumption that the children will spend substantial time with each parent, although the final plan will depend on the children’s ages, how close their homes are to each other, and their parents’ work patterns. A “normal” plan for school age children would have them with their father for alternate weekends – Friday to Monday morning – an after-school meeting once a week and half the school holidays.

Programmes for early intervention to divert parents from the court process have been common throughout the US for more than 20 years. Legislation in California and Florida was introduced in the early 1980s in response to research showing that children from broken homes need both parents to go on playing a significant part in their lives.

Unlike in Britain, the right of children to have access to both their parents until 18 is written into statute. In both states, mediation is mandatory and in Florida no parents, including those who have been models of parental cooperation from the beginning, can divorce without taking a four-hour parent education course.

Gap in law

As in England and Wales, about 90% of parents manage the difficult transition to post-separation parenting without involving the courts. But where cases do go to court, the English experience is radically different.

The resident parent, usually the mother, holds all the cards. There is a presumption that the other parent will spend time with the child, but no presumption written into statute that contact will be “frequent and continuous”.

Absent parents, usually fathers, are left to apply to the court if the resident parent denies contact. Fathers can spend years making dozens of court applications, with many months between them, to little effect.

Last year a high court family division judge, Mr Justice Munby, delivered a blistering attack on the system when a father left his court in tears after being driven to abandon a five-year battle to see his daughter, which had involved 43 court hearings.

He called for sweeping changes and suggested that the way the English courts dealt with contact applications might even breach the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the right to respect for family life, the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and the enforcement of court orders.

The judge said he could understand why there was disappointment that the family resolutions pilot scheme, then just announced, only encouraged mediation rather than making it mandatory.

Nine months after the pilot started in three English courts last September, the latest figures – showing that only 47 couples entered it, against an estimate of 1,000, and that only 23 completed the programme – seem to fulfil the prophecy by fathers’ groups that making it optional would doom it to failure.

Although ministers estimate that 90% of separating parents work out their own arrangements for the children without involving the courts, some 40,000 took cases to court in England and Wales in 2003-04. Half were repeat applications and 7,000 applications were for enforcement of contact orders which were flouted by the resident parent.

In Florida, by contrast, very few cases now go to court, according to Judge John Lenderman, a circuit judge on the state’s sixth circuit. He said: “I’m totally con vinced mediation should be mandatory. Every judge that I’ve talked to around the United States says mandatory mediation is the way to go.”

Nor is there anything peculiar to the US about the mandatory schemes: disputes over contact in Norway are dealt with a similar way. “There are distinct cultural differences but people in western civilisation are the same,” said Judge Lenderman. “[Parents] love their children worldwide.”

Senior judges in Britain agree that parents need more support to resolve their cases outside the courts if possible. The retired high court family division judge Dame Margaret Booth told a conference which was trying to get a Florida-type scheme off the ground three years ago: “It is a shame that our country does not easily learn from what other jurisdictions have done successfully for so long.

“In this matter we are years behind. I believe profoundly that the time has come to remove our blinkers.”

Two couples, two sessions with the mediator

Juan and Kelly

At the superior court in downtown LA, Juan, a plumber, and Kelly, an underwriter, have come to court for their mediation session. After an 18-month marriage, they separated six years ago, before the birth of their second daughter, now five (her sister is seven).

Both work long hours. For years after their separation they shared parenting time, with Juan having the girls on alternate weekends and a big input from Kelly’s mother.

Now Juan has filed an application with the court, triggering the compulsory mediation session. “The whole reason we’re here today is the situation where she left the girls with me for three months,” he says.

Kelly says she was “overwhelmed with bills and responsibility” and asked her ex-husband to look after the girls for a time. He had just moved in with a new girlfriend who “didn’t really agree to it but had no choice”.

She agrees to go back to the alternate weekends schedule. But the mediator proposes that the girls also see him one night a week for dinner, drawing on psychological research suggesting the gap between alternate weekends is too long at their age.

He resists, saying he can’t guarantee his boss would let him leave the job early enough. That one issue will go to the judge to decide. “If the judge says I have to do it, I can give it to my boss,” he says.

Marie and Jack

Marie, from France, and her English-born former husband, Jack, have their mediation session by telephone conferencing because Jack, a record producer, is working in Australia. He is due to return to LA the following month after three months away.

This is a “high-conflict” case and the couple, separated for a year but not yet divorced, have been ordered to take the basic parenting class – which should happen before mediation, but which they have not yet taken – and an extra “parenting without conflict” course.

Marie, who gets $5,000 a month child support, and Jack are arguing over whether she should take their daughters, aged six and three, on a previously agreed month-long holiday in France.

He was upset when he came back to LA on a visit and his younger daughter did not recognise him. He had the girls with him for four days then and “could see some serious problems.” He accuses Marie of arguing in front of the children.

Marie and Jack reach an agreement that she will allow the girls to talk to him on the phone every day at 7pm while he is away, but the other issues will be left for the judge.

· Clare Dyer sat in on several mediations at the LA superior court at the downtown and Santa Monica locations. The couples’ names have been changed.

For the original article:

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/contents.html

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", "Stephen Baskerville", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, court corruption, court reform, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, custody, Divorce, due process rights, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fathers rights, federal crimes, judicial corruption, Marriage, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parents rights, Religion, scientific theory

From Welfare State to Police State

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, DSM-IV, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Freedom, Homeschool, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes, Title Iv-D on June 9, 2009 at 7:14 pm

May 4, 2008
by Stephen Baskerville

Family fragmentation costs taxpayers at least $112 billion annually in antipoverty programs, justice and education systems, and lost revenue, according to a report released last week. Astonishingly, the report’s publisher, Institute for American Values, is using these findings to advocate even higher costs, through more federal programs.

As welfare and child support enforcement programs show, there is zero proof that further government intervention into families would be a good investment for taxpayers.

After more than a decade of welfare reform, out-of-wedlock births remain at record highs, and married couples now comprise less than half the nation’s households. “The impact of welfare reform is now virtually zero,” says Robert Rector of Heritage Foundation.

Welfare reform, as currently conceived, cannot possibly make a difference. Out-of-wedlock births no longer proceed only from low-income teenagers. Increasingly, middle-class, middle-aged women are bearing the fatherless children. This excludes children of divorce, which almost doubles the 1.5 million out-of-wedlock births.

The problem is driven not only by culture, but by federal programs not addressed by welfare reform—such as child support enforcement, domestic violence, and child abuse prevention—which subsidize single-parent homes through their quasi-welfare entitlements for the affluent.

It’s not called the welfare “state” for nothing. Even more serious than the economic effects has been the quiet metamorphosis of welfare from a system of public assistance into a miniature penal apparatus, replete with its own tribunals, prosecutors, police, and jails.

The subsidy on single-mother homes was never really curtailed. Reformers largely replaced welfare with child support. The consequences were profound: this change transformed welfare from public assistance into law enforcement, creating yet another federal plainclothes police force without constitutional justification.

Like any bureaucracy, this one found rationalizations to expand. During the 1980s and 1990s—without explanation or public debate—enforcement machinery created for children in poverty was dramatically expanded to cover all child-support cases, including those not receiving welfare.

This vastly expanded the program by bringing in millions of middle-class divorce cases. The system was intended for welfare—but other cases now account for 83% of its cases and 92% of the money collected.

Contrary to what was promised, the cost to taxpayers increased sharply. By padding their rolls with millions of middle-class parents, state governments could collect a windfall of federal incentive payments. State officials may spend this revenue however they wish. Federal taxpayers subsidize state government operations through child support. They also subsidize family dissolution, for every fatherless child is another source of revenue for states.

To collect, states must channel not just delinquent but current payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, subjecting law-abiding parents to criminal measures. While officials claim their crackdowns on “deadbeat dads” increase collections, the “increase” is achieved not by collecting arrearages of low-income fathers already in the system, but simply by pulling in more middle-class fathers—and creating more fatherless children.

These fathers haven’t abandoned their children. Most were actively involved, and, following what is usually involuntary divorce, desire more time with them. Yet for the state to collect funding, fathers willing to care for them must be designated as “absent.” Divorce courts are pressured to cut children off from their fathers to conform to the welfare model of “custodial” and “noncustodial.” These perverse incentives further criminalize fathers, by impelling states to make child-support levels as onerous as possible and to squeeze every dollar from every parent available.

Beyond the subsidy expense are costs of diverting the criminal justice system from protecting society to criminalizing parents and keeping them from their children. The entitlement state must then devise additional programs—far more expensive—to deal with the social costs of fatherless children. Former Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary Wade Horn contends that most of the $47 billion spent by his department is necessitated by broken homes and fatherless children. One might extend his point to most of the half-trillion dollar HHS budget. Given the social ills attributed to fatherless homes—crime, truancy, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide—it is reasonable to see a huge proportion of domestic spending among the costs.

These developments offer a preview of where our entire system of welfare taxation is headed: expropriating citizens to pay for destructive programs that create the need for more spending and taxation. It cannot end anywhere but in the criminalization of more and more of the population.

Stephen Baskerville is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College, and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).

The original article can be found here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2184

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, court corruption, court reform, CPS, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, cps fraud, cps scam, custody, Divorce, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, judicial corruption, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights

Does Family Preservation Work? – Parental Rights

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Orphan Trains, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm

From the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org

Family preservation is one of the most intensively-scrutinized programs in all of child welfare. Several studies — and real world experience — show that family preservation programs that follow the Homebuilders model safely prevent placement in foster care.

Michigan’s Families First program sticks rigorously to the Homebuilders model. The Michigan program was evaluated by comparing children who received family preservation services to a “control group” that did not. After one year, among children who were referred because of abuse or neglect, the control group children were nearly twice as likely to be placed in foster care, as the Families First children. Thirty-six percent of children in the control group were placed, compared to only 19.4 percent of the Families First children. [1]

Another Michigan study went further. In this study, judges actually gave permission to researchers to “take back” some children they had just ordered into foster care and place them in Families First instead. One year later, 93 percent of these children still were in their own homes. [2] And Michigan’s State Auditor concluded that the Families First program “has generally been effective in providing a safe alternative to the out-of-home placement of children who are at imminent risk of being removed from the home The program places a high priority on the safety of children.” [3]

An experiment in Utah and Washington State also used a comparison group. After one year, 85.2 percent of the children in the comparison group were placed in foster care, compared to only 44.4 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services.[4]

A study in California found that 55 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 26 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services. [5]

A North Carolina study comparing 1,254 families receiving Intensive Family Preservation Services to more than 100,000 families who didn’t found that “IFPS consistently resulted in fewer placements…”[6]

And still another study, in Minnesota, found that, in dealing with troubled adolescents, fully 90 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 56 percent of those who received intensive family preservation services.[7]

Some agencies are now using IFPS to help make sure children are safe when they are returned home after foster care. Here again, researchers are beginning to see impressive results. In a Utah study, 77.2 percent of children whose families received IFPS help after reunification were still safely with their birth parents after one year, compared with 49.1 percent in a control group.[8]

Critics ignore all of this evidence, preferring to cite a study done for the federal government which purports to find that IFPS is no better than conventional services. But though critics of family preservation claim that this study evaluated programs that followed the Homebuilders model, that’s not true. In a rigorous critique of the study, Prof. Ray Kirk of the University of North Carolina School of Social Work notes that the so-called IFPS programs in this study actually diluted the Homebuilders model, providing service that was less intensive and less timely. At the same time, the “conventional” services sometimes were better than average. In at least one case, they may well have been just as intensive as the IFPS program – so it’s hardly surprising that the researchers would find little difference between the two.

Furthermore, efforts to truly assign families at random to experimental and control groups sometimes were thwarted by workers in the field who felt this was unethical. Workers resisted assigning what they considered to be “high risk” families to control groups that would not receive help from IFPS programs. In addition, the study failed to target children who actually were at imminent risk of placement.

Given all these problems, writes Prof. Kirk, “a finding of ‘no difference between treatment and experimental groups’ is simply a non-finding from a failed study.”[9]

Prof. Kirk’s findings mirror those of an evaluation of earlier studies purporting to show that IFPS was ineffective. The evaluation found that these studies “did not adhere to rigorous methodological criteria.”[10]

In contrast, according to Prof. Kirk, “there is a growing body of evidence that IFPS works, in that it is more effective than traditional services in preventing out-of-home placements of children in high-risk families.”[11]

Prof. Kirk’s assessment was confirmed by a detailed review of IFPS studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. According to this review:

“IFPS programs that adhere closely to the Homebuilders model significantly reduce out-of-home placements and subsequent abuse and neglect. We estimate that such programs produce $2.54 of benefits for each dollar of cost. Non-Homebuilders programs produce no significant effect on either outcome.”[12]

Some critics argue that evaluations of family preservation programs are inherently flawed because they allegedly focus on placement prevention instead of child safety. But a placement can only be prevented if a child is believed to be safe. Placement prevention is a measure of safety.

Of course, the key words here are “believed to be.” Children who have been through intensive family preservation programs are generally among the most closely monitored. But there are cases in which children are reabused and nobody finds out. And there are cases — like Joseph Wallace — in which the warnings of family preservation workers are ignored. No one can be absolutely certain that the child left at home is safe — but no one can be absolutely certain that the child placed in foster care is safe either — and family preservation has the better track record.

And, as discussed in Issue Paper 1, with safe, proven strategies to keep families together now widely used in Alabama, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere, the result is fewer foster care placements and safer children.

Indeed, the whole idea that family preservation — and only family preservation — should be required to prove itself over and over again reflects a double standard. After more than a century of experience, isn’t it time that the advocates of foster care be held to account for the failure of their program?

Updated, April 24, 2006

1. Carol Berquist, et. al., Evaluation of Michigan’s Families First Program (Lansing Mich: University Associates, March, 1993). Back to Text.

2. Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Srinika Jayaratne, Ph.D, Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings, Sept. 28, 1999, p.18. Back to Text.

3. State of Michigan, Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Families First of Michigan Program, July, 1998, pp. 2-4. Back to Text.

4. Mark W. Fraser, et. al., Families in Crisis: The Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991), p.168. Back to Text.

5. S. Wood, S., K. Barton, C. Schroeder, “In-Home Treatment of Abusive Families: Cost and Placement at One Year.” Psychotherapy Vol. 25 (1988) pp. 409-14, cited in Howard Bath and David Haapala, “Family Preservation Services: What Does the Outcome Research Really Tell Us,” Social Services Review, September, 1994, Table A1, p.400. Back to Text.

6. R.S. Kirk, Tailoring Intensive Family Preservation Services for Family Reunification Cases: Research, Evaluation and Assessment, (www.nfpn.org/resourcess/articles/tailoring.html). Back to Text.

7. I.M. Schwartz, et. al., “Family Preservation Services as an Alternative to Out-of-Home Placement of Adolescents,” in K. Wells and D.E. Biegel, eds., Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991) pp.33-46, cited in Bath and Happala, note 3, supra.Back to Text.

8. R.E. Lewis, et. al., “Examining family reunification services: A process analysis of a successful experiment,” Research on Social Work Practice, 5, (3), 259-282, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

9. R.S. Kirk, A Critique of the “Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report,” May, 2001. Back to Text.

10. A. Heneghan, et. al., Evaluating intensive family preservation services: A methodological review. Pediatrics, 97(4), 535-542, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

11. Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

12. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Intensive Family Preservation Programs: Program Fidelity Influences Effectiveness. February, 2006, available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-02-3901.pdf

The original article can be found here: http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/11.html

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", "Stephen Baskerville", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, court corruption, court reform, CPS, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, cps fraud, cps scam, Divorce, due process rights, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, judicial corruption, Marriage, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parents rights, scientific theory, state corruption

Parental Mediation Does Not Work, Wake Up U.S. Courts

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, DSM-IV, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Homeschool, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 8, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Introduction

One of the government’s most exhaustive research reports ever commissioned called ‘Monitoring Publicly Funded Family Mediation’ found that ‘mediation‘ in this country did not ‘meet the objectives of saving marriages or helping divorcing couples to resolve problems with a minimum of acrimony’ and as a result was forced to scrap the idea of making mediation compulsory – see the statement from the former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, 16th.January 2000. However it is is still used as a method for deflecting fathers from receiving reasonable contact with their child or children. This section is intended to help fathers by highlighting some of the pitfalls of mediation with reference to the government’s own research report. If you have a query regarding any aspect of the mediation process, for example, Section 10, ‘The Parties Attitudes to Negotiation’, you can consult the government’s own research by clicking alongside!

“The government is committed to supporting marriage and to supporting families when relationships fail, especially when there are children involved. But this very comprehensive research, together with other recent valuable research in the field, has shown that Part II of the Family Law Act (i.e. Mediation) is not the best way of achieving those aims. The government is not therefore satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II and proposes to ask Parliament to repeal it once suitable legislative opportunity occurs.”

Former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, 16th.January 2000

NB For all legal aid certificates ‘mediation’ has to take place before the certificate (or funding) can be issued. However it can be deemed unnecessary if the mother makes an allegation of domestic abuse.

The original article can be found here: http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", "Stephen Baskerville", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, court corruption, court reform, CPS, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, cps fraud, cps scam, custody, Divorce, due process rights, education, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, judicial corruption, Marriage, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, parenting, Parents rights, scientific theory

How To Kidnap A Child

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes, Title Iv-D on June 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm

by Stephen Baskerville, PhD

Congratulations! You have embarked on a great adventure. Kidnapping a child is probably unlike anything you have done before. If you are a first-time kidnapper you may be hesitant; perhaps you have lingering scruples. It is true you will probably do irreparable harm to your own child. Children of divorce more often become involved in drugs, alcohol, and crime, become pregnant as teenagers, perform poorly in school, join gangs, and commit suicide.

But look at the advantages! You can be rid of that swine you live with, with all his tedious opinions about child-rearing. YOU call the shots! What could be more rewarding? And a little extra cash each month never hurts, eh?

Few people realize how easy abduction is. It happens 1,000 times a day, mostly by parents! So if you’re thinking, “I could never get away with it,” wake up! Millions do. In fact many only realize the possibility when they become victims. Then they invariably say, “If only I had known how easy it is I would have done it myself!” So don’t be caught off guard. Read on, and discover the exciting world of child kidnapping and extortion.

If you are mother the best time to snatch is soon after you have a new child or pregnancy. Once you have what you want, you will realize that the father is no longer necessary (except for child support).

A father should consider snatching as soon as he suspects the mother might. Once she has the child, you have pretty much lost the game. You will always be at a disadvantage, but it is in your interest (as it is in hers) to snatch first. Preventive snatching may not look good (and unlike her, it can be used against you). But hey, you have the kid. If you hit the road, it could take years to track you down.

Surprise is crucial for an elegant abduction. Wait until the other parent is away, and clean the place out thoroughly. Take all the child’s effects, because if you don’t grab it now you will never get it, and you will never be forced to return any of it. The more you have, the better “home” you can claim to provide. You also want to achieve the maximum emotional devastation to your spouse. Like the terrorist, you want to impress with how swift, sudden, and unpredictable your strike can be.

Concealing the child is illegal, but it will also buy you time. The police will make the case a low priority, and if you are a mother you will never be prosecuted. In the meantime claim to have established a “stable routine” and that returning the child (or even visits) would be “disruptive.” Anything that keeps the child in your possession and away from their father works to your advantage.

Find superficial ways to appear cooperative. Inform the father of your decisions (after you have made them). At the same time avoid real cooperation. The judge will conclude that the parents “can’t agree” and leave you in charge. Since it is standard piety that joint custody requires “cooperation,” the easiest way to sabotage joint custody is to be as uncooperative as possible.

Go to court right away. The more aggressive you are with litigation the more it will appear you have some valid grievance. The judge and lawyers (including your spouse’s) will be grateful for the business you create. Despite professions of heavy caseloads, courts are under pressure to channel money to lawyers, whose bar associations appoint and promote judges. File a motion for sole custody, and get a restraining order to keep the father from seeing his children. (A nice touch is to say he is planning to “kidnap” them.) Or have him restricted to supervised visitation.

Going to court is also a great opportunity to curtail anything you dislike about your spouse’s child-rearing. If you don’t like his religion, get an injunction against him discussing it. Is he fussy about table manners or proper behavior? Getting a court order is easier than you think. You may even get the child’s entire upbringing micro-managed by judicial directives.

Charges of physical and sexual abuse are also helpful. Accusing a father of sexually abusing his own children is very easy and can be satisfying for its own sake.

Don’t worry about proving the charges. An experienced judge will recognize trumped-up allegations. This is not important, since no one will ever blame the judge for being “better safe than sorry,” and accusations create business for his cronies. You yourself will never have to answer for false charges. The investigation also buys time during which you can further claim to be establishing a routine while keeping Dad at a distance and programming the children against him.

Abuse accusations are also marvelously self-fulfilling. What more logical way to provoke a parent to lash out than to take away his children? Men naturally become violent when someone interferes with their children. This is what fathers are for. The more you can torment him with the ruin of his family, home, livelihood, savings, and sanity, the more likely that he will self-destruct, thus demonstrating his unfitness.

Get the children themselves involved. Children are easily convinced they have been molested. Once the suggestion is planted, any affection from their father will elicit a negative reaction, making your suggestion self-fulfilling in the child’s mind. And if one of your new lovers actually has molested the child, you can divert the accusation to Dad.

Dripping poison into the hearts of your children can be gratifying, and it is a joy to watch the darlings absorb your hostility. Young children can be filled with venom fairly easily just by telling them what a rat their father is as frequently as possible.

Older children present more of a challenge. They may have fond memories of the love and fun they once experienced with him. These need to be expunged or at least tainted. Try little tricks like saying, “Today you will be seeing your father, but don’t worry, it won’t last long.” Worry aloud about the other parent’s competence to care for the child or what unpleasant or dangerous experience may be in store during the child’s visit. Sign the child up for organized activities that conflict with Dad’s visits. Or promise fun things, like a trip to Disneyland, which then must be “cancelled” to visit Dad.

You will soon discover how neatly your techniques reinforce one another. For example, marginalizing the father and alienating the child become perfect complements merely by suggesting that Daddy is absent because he does not love you. What could be more logical in their sweet little minds!

And what works with children is also effective with judges. The more you can make the children hate their father the easier you make it to leave custody with you.

Remember too, this guide is no substitute for a good lawyer, since nothing is more satisfying than watching a hired goon beat up on your child’s father in a courtroom.

And now you can do what you like! You can warehouse the kids in daycare while you work (or whatever). You don’t have to worry about brushing hair or teeth. You can slap them when they’re being brats. You can feed them fast food every night (or just give them Cheez Whiz). If they become a real annoyance you can turn them over to the state social services agency. You are free!

November 19, 2001

The original article can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville1.html

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, court corruption, court reform, CPS, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, cps fraud, cps scam, custody, Divorce, due process rights, education, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, judicial corruption, Marriage, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, parenting, Parents rights, scientific theory, state corruption

Why Kids Usually Side with the Custodial Parent Especially If They’re Emotionally Abusive

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, DSM-IV, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, Liberty, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 7, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Do your children refuse to see you since you and your ex separated? When you actually get to see your kid(s), do they lash out at you? Do they know things about your break up or divorce that they shouldn’t know? Do they “diagnose” or berate you by using adult terms and expressions that are beyond their years?

If so, you’re probably experiencing the effects of parental alienation or hostile aggressive parenting. It’s normal to have hard feelings at the end of a significant relationship, however, you have a choice about how you handle it.

Most cases of parental alienation occur in dissolved marriages/relationships, break ups, and divorces in which there’s a high degree of conflict, emotional abuse, and/or mental illness or personality disorders.

If you were emotionally abused by your ex while you were still together, then your kid(s) learned some powerful lessons about relationships, especially if you had a “no talk” policy about the rages, yelling, and verbal attacks. Children are adversely affected by witnessing constant conflict and emotional abuse, no matter their age.

Emotionally abusive women and men are scary when on the attack, which probably makes it all the more confusing to see your ex turn your child(ren) against you. Don’t your kids see how out of whack their mom or dad is being? Don’t they know that you love them and how much you want to be in their lives? Don’t they realize they need you now more than ever? Yes and no.

On some level, they do know this. Nonetheless, they’re lashing out at you like mini-versions of your ex. Why?

It’s not that confusing if you think about it from a child’s perspective. Children depend utterly upon their custodial parent. Seeing mom or dad lose it and out of control is anxiety provoking, if not downright terrifying. The following are possible reasons why your ex’s campaign of parental alienation may be successful.

1.) You left them alone with the crazy person. You got out and they didn’t. They’re mad that you’re not there anymore to intervene, buffer, protect, or take the brunt of it.

2.) Self-preservation. They see how your ex is treating you because she or he is angry with you. Your kid(s) don’t want your ex’s wrath directed at them. It’s like siding with the bully at school so they don’t beat the crap out of you.

3.) Fear of loss. If they make your ex mad they worry that they’ll be emotionally and/or physically banished, too. This is especially true if your ex used to shut you out, give you the cold shoulder, and/or ignore you when she or he was upset with you. Your kids probably fear your ex will do this to them if they don’t go along with him or her.

4.) They’re mad at you. You’re no longer physically present at home, which they experience as psychological loss. Many kids experience this as betrayal and/or abandonment. Even if they can recognize that you didn’t have a happy marriage, they still want mom and dad to be together.

Loss, whether it’s physical (death) or psychological (divorce), requires a mourning period. Children aren’t psychologically equipped to handle grief and mourning. Pending other developmental milestones, kids don’t have the psychological capacity to successfully navigate loss until mid-adolescence. If you’d died, they could idealize your memory. However, you’re alive and chose to leave (or your ex chose for you). How do you mourn the loss of someone who’s not dead? It takes a level of intellectual sophistication children don’t possess not to vilify the physically absent parent—especially when your ex isn’t capable of it as an adult.

5.) Rewards and punishment. Your ex “rewards” the kids (material goods, praise, trips and fun activities—probably with your support money—oh the irony) for siding with her or him, being cruel to you, or cutting you off. If your kid(s) stand up for you or challenge your ex’s smear campaign, they’re chastised, lose privileges, or have affection withheld from them. Remember how your ex used to treat you when she or he was displeased? It’s way scarier when you’re a kid. You have options as an adult that your children don’t.

6.) The good son or daughter. They see how upset and out of control your ex is and want to take care of and make her or him “better.” They try to do this by doing what your ex wants, which is being hostile toward you and/or excluding you from their lives. This creates what psychologists refer to as the parentified child. Parentification forces a child to shoulder emotions and responsibilities for which she or he isn’t developmentally prepared.

Emotional parentification is particularly destructive for children and frequently occurs in parental alienation cases. The custodial parent implicitly or explicitly dumps their emotional needs on the child. The child becomes the parent’s confidante, champion/hero and surrogate for an adult partner. This is extremely unhealthy as it robs these kids of their childhood and leads to difficulty in having normal adult relationships later in life.

7..) Power and control. They see the power your ex wields by behaving in an abusive and hurtful way toward you. They can wield the same power by acting out and hurting you, too. A child or teenager’s first taste of power can be thrilling for them. Of course, what they’re learning from you ex is how to gain control by being an emotionally abusive bully.

8.) It’s good to be the victim. The more your ex plays the professional victim to friends, family and the legal system, the more benefits she or he gains—deferential treatment, sympathy, power, and money. The kids pick up on this victim mentality and behaviors and use it to net their own gains.

A combination of the above reasons probably applies to your child(ren) siding with your ex, particularly when you’ve been a good and loving parent. It’s demoralizing to have your kid(s) slap or push you away each time you reach out to them. It’s maddening that family court, in many cases, is blind to the abuses of parental alienation. Try to keep in mind that most children aren’t consciously aware that the above phenomena are occurring. Of course, that doesn’t make it any easier to be the emotional and financial punching bag for your ex and children.

The original article can be found here: http://washingtonsharedparenting.com/?p=411

▶ View 1 Comment

"constitutional rights", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Protective Services, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, court corruption, court reform, CPS, cps child trafficking, cps childstealing, cps fraud, Divorce, due process rights, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, judicial corruption, Maternal Deprivation, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights, Religion, scientific theory, state corruption

Maternal Deprivation? Monkeys, Yes; Mommies, No…

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Autism, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Christian, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, Indians, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Orphan Trains, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Torts on June 7, 2009 at 5:00 am

Do children do best with one parent over another? Or does biology determine who is the better parent?

If you ask the feminists of the 70s who wanted to be free of restrictive child-rearing and assume an equal station in the workplace and politics, the answer to the first question would be no. Why would feminists give up their biologically superior position of motherhood, in which a mother is the primary caregiver, in favor of a job? What narcissists mother would do that?

And yet, today, if you ask the very self-same feminists who are leading the charge to narrow sole-custody of children in divorce proceedings to a woman based on some “biological advantage” the answer to the second question would be yes.

Upon this, you have the creation of a legally untenable position given to women based on gender. To get around “having your cake and eating it, too,” state family law has created the “imaginary world” of the “primary parent” dictum, which guides family law today, which is just a primary rehashing of “tender years doctrine”, both of which do not have the legal merit whatsover, nor the empirical research to support either.

But if you go back to the Maternal Deprivation nonsense, you quickly find the empirical research that throws this theory back into the area of “junk science” where it belongs. Maternal Deprivation is both empirically wrong and a sexist theory.

The junk science theory and refutation can be found here:
http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bowlby.html

“Although Bowlby may not dispute that young children form multiple attachments, he still contends that the attachment to the mother is unique in that it is the first to appear and remains the strongest of all. However, on both of these counts, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

* Schaffer & Emerson (1964) noted that specific attachments started at about 8 months and, very shortly thereafter, the infants became attached to other people. By 18 months very few (13%) were attached to only one person; some had five or more attachments.

* Rutter (1981) points out that several indicators of attachment (such as protest or distress when attached person leaves) has been shown for a variety of attachment figures – fathers, siblings, peers and even inanimate objects.

Critics such as Rutter have also accused Bowlby of not distinguishing between deprivation and privation – the complete lack of an attachment bond, rather than its loss. Rutter stresses that the quality of the attachment bond is the most important factor, rather than just deprivation in the critical period.

Another criticism of 44 Thieves Study as that it concluded that affectionless psychopathy was caused by maternal deprivation. This is correlational data and as such only shows a relationship between these two variables. Indeed, other external variables, such as diet, parental income, education etc. may have affected the behaviour of the 44 thieves, and not, as concluded, the disruption of the attachment bond.”

There are implications arising from Bowlby’s work. As he believed the mother to be the most central care giver and that this care should be given on a continuous basis an obvious implication is that mothers should not go out to work. There have been many attacks on this claim:

* Mothers are the exclusive carers in only a very small percentage of human societies; often there are a number of people involved in the care of children, such as relations and friends (Weisner & Gallimore, 1977).

* Ijzendoorn & Tavecchio (1987) argue that a stable network of adults can provide adequate care and that this care may even have advantages over a system where a mother has to meet all a child’s needs.

* There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

There are many articles relating to this nonsense, and how it has been refuted. The original theory was promulgated by John Bowlby. Bowlby grew up mother-fixated because he did not have a relationship with his father. See why here.

Psychological research includes a shocking history and continuation of maternal deprivation experiments on animals. While maternal deprivation experiments have been conducted far more frequently on rhesus macaques and other monkeys, chimpanzees were not spared as victims of this unnecessary research.
Maternal Deprivation applies to monkeys only.

▶ Comment

"constitutional rights", Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, child support scam, child trafficking, Children, Childrens Rights, court corruption, court reform, Divorce, due process rights, family civil rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Famiy Values, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Marriage, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental rights, Parents rights

Custody Relocation: A Negative Effect on Children – In LaMusga

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, DSM-IV, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm

A custodial parent’s proposed relocation will almost always have a negative impact on the relationship of the noncustodial parent and the children. The California Supreme Court recently clarified the standard to be used in relocation cases in that state, holding that this impact should be considered as a factor in determining whether the custodial parent’s proposed relocation will result in detriment to the children sufficient to warrant a modification of custody.

In In re Marriage of LaMusga, Cal. 4th 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 (2004), after a contentious custody battle, the parties were awarded joint custody of their two children with the mother being awarded primary physical custody. Several years later, the mother again sought to relocate to Ohio with the children. A child custody evaluation was performed that established that the father’s relationship with the children would deteriorate after the relocation and that, based on the mother’s previous behavior, there was no indication that she would be supportive of the father’s continued relationship with the children despite her claims to the contrary. The trial court found that the mother’s proposed relocation was not made in bad faith but concluded that the effect of the move would be detrimental to the welfare of the children because it would hinder frequent and continuing contact between the children and the father. The trial court held that if the mother chose to relocate, primary physical custody of the children would be transferred to the father.

The trial court’s decision was reversed by the California Court of Appeal. The court of appeal held that the trial court had failed to properly consider the mother’s presumptive right as custodial parent to change the residence of the children or the children’s need for continuity and stability in the existing custodial arrangement. 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 371. The court of appeal also found that the trial court had “placed undue emphasis on the detriment that would be caused by the children’s relationship with Father if they moved.” Id.

The court of appeal relied on an earlier California Supreme Court decision, In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal. 4th 25, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 444 (1996). In Burgess, the Supreme Court of California held that in relocation cases there was no requirement that the custodial parent demonstrate that the proposed relocation was “necessary.” LaMusga, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 367 (quoting Burgess, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 452). Instead, the burden is on the noncustodial parent to prove that a change of circumstances exists warranting a change in the custody arrangement. LaMusga, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 367. The supreme court also held that “paramount needs for continuity and stability in custody arrangements . . . weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.” Id. at 371 (quoting Burgess, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 449-50).

The supreme court rejected the court of appeal’s position that undue emphasis was placed on the detrimental effect of the proposed relocation on the father’s relationship with the children. The court of appeal concluded that all relocations result in “a significant detriment to the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent” and, therefore, no custodial parent would ever be permitted to relocate with the children as long as any detriment could be established. Id. at 373. The supreme court accepted the validity of the court of appeal’s position but noted that the court of appeal’s fears were unfounded. The supreme court stated that “a showing that a proposed move will cause detriment to the relationship between the children and the noncustodial parent” will not mandate a change in custody. Id. Instead, a trial court has discretion to order such a change in custody based on the showing of such a detriment if such a change is in the best interests of the child. Id. The supreme court explained its holding as follows:

The likely consequences of a proposed change in the residence of a child, when considered in the light of all the relevant factors, may constitute a change of circumstances that warrants a change in custody, and the detriment to the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent that will be caused by the proposed move, when considered in light of all the relevant factors, may warrant denying a request to change the child’s residence or changing custody. The extent to which a proposed move will detrimentally impact a child varies greatly depending upon the circumstances. We will generally leave it to the superior court to assess that impact in light of the other relevant factors in determining what is in the best interests of the child.

Id. at 374-75.

The Supreme Court of California in LaMusga has seemingly retreated from its much broader decision in Burgess. In Burgess, the court essentially established a presumption in favor of maintaining a custody arrangement in the interests of a child’s paramount need for continuity and stability. In LaMusga, however, the court stepped away from this presumption and found that the child’s need for continuity and stability was just one factor in determining whether to modify a custody award. The court found that other factors, such as the detrimental effect of the proposed relocation on the relationship between a child and the noncustodial parent, could also control the outcome of a custody case depending on the unique facts of each case. The supreme court’s decision in LaMusga seems to subscribe to the principle that due to the fact-intensive nature of relocation cases a comprehensive review of all possible factors impacting on a child’s best interest will yield the most equitable results.

▶ Comment

	mkg4583 on Children Abused 4 Times as Muc…
	Sams Dad on Severe Sociopaths Oppose Paren…
	Star Anna (@Benandre… on Children Abused 4 Times as Muc…
	Rolando Mencia (@rol… on Parental Alienation Syndrome a…
	Stefan Molyneux fire… on Mothers Abuse Children 3 Times…

Posts Tagged ‘Parents rights’

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize”

18 hours ago | Knoxville, Tennessee | Vetting explained

CNN producer note

Share this on:

Comments (11)

57 minutes ago

1 hour ago

1 hour ago

2 hours ago

2 hours ago

4 hours ago

11 hours ago

12 hours ago

15 hours ago

17 hours ago

18 hours ago

What is iReport?

Share

Discuss

Be heard

Vetting explained

Part of complete coverage on

27 minutes ago

5 hours ago

5 hours ago

Tuesday, February 23

Monday, February 22

Sunday, February 21

Part II: The State Preference for Splitting up Families Using the ‘Best Interests of the Child’

Rights of the Child UK – Rock coalition

Rock coalition members

Why make the UNCRC part of our national law?

Coalition meeting in Edinburgh on Monday 13 July

The coalition’s response to the UK Government’s proposals for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

Find out more

Family Rights and Shared Parenting Advocate Called on Carpet for Carping Criticism of Children’s and Fathers Rights Article!

Teri Stoddard – A Legend in Her Own Mind!

Don’t Miss

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Introduction

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Top Clicks

NetworkedBlogs

Materials Posted

Blog Catalog

Archives

Blog Stats

Member of Twitter Parents

Recent Comments

Pages

FriendFeed Links

BlogTalk Radio – Parental Alienation

Blogroll

Categories

Friend Feed