"The man as he converses is the lover; silent, he is the husband." ~ Honore de Balzac


Family Judge Deprived Man of Fair Hearing - This happens everyday in America!!

Location: County of Miami Dade: Family Court Services, 175 Northwest 1st Avenue #1503, Miami, FL 33128, USA

A Morris County Family Division judge denied a man his right to a fair hearing and inappropriately cut off his explanations before issuing a final domestic violence restraining order against the man who was accused of threatening to post intimate videos of his ex-girlfriend on the Internet, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The appellate panel, ruling in a Morris County case captioned C.H. vs. J.S., reversed a final restraining order issued on July 9, 2014 by Superior Court Judge Philip J. Maenza and ordered that a new hearing be conducted by another judge.

"Not only was the evidence of record insufficient to support the trial judge's conclusions, but also the procedures employed at trial deprived defendant of fundamental due process," the appeals court said in its written decision.

According to the decision. C.H. and J.S. began dating in June 2012 and ended their relationship in October 2013.  They resumed their relationship before breaking up for good in June 2014.  The man allegedly sent the woman a series of "six or seven ranting text messages" that called her names and suggested he would post private videos of the woman on the Internet, the decision said.

The parties were identified only by their initials in the ruling, which also did not state their hometowns.

At the hearing before Maenza, neither the man nor woman was represented by an attorney. The woman generally testified her ex-beau had previously threatened Internet postings of her and she "wanted to put a stop to it" so she contacted police.

At trial, Maenza asked: "How did this incident about the video affect you?" and "Are you concerned?" The woman responded that she was concerned because "once something goes on the Internet it doesn't come off the Internet."
The judge addressed the man at the hearing and asked whether he had questions for the woman.  J.S. responded: "I don't know the context to ask something like this."  The judge queried, according to the decision: "Well, let me ask you this, do you dispute that you had this conversation and these emails where you threatened to expose her to the world?"

The man responded: "I admit that the third time that she broke up with me I...was very hurt and I said things I didn't mean but I also think that after two years of being with me she knows that I would never do anything like that. I don't even know how to do anything like that. I wanted her to understand...how hurt I was...but that's it."
The hearing ended after J.S.'s statement, with the judge announcing:"That's where you cross the line."  He found that J.S.'s statement's represented an admission of criminal harassment, concluded the ex-girlfriend had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that an act of domestic violence had occurred and decided to grant C.H. a final restraining order.
The appellate division wrote that the man attempted to ask a question but was "rebuffed," and when he objected that he believed he didn't get to ask several questions he wanted to, he was told he could ask questions after the order was issued, the decision said.

After the order was entered, J.S. -- through attorney Patricia Cistaro -- appealed the Maenza order.  Cistaro was not immediately available for comment Tuesday. Cistaro had asserted that the "evidence" warranting a restraining order was insufficient and that J.S.'s due process rights to a fair hearing and right to defend himself against the harassment claims were violated.

The appeals court noted the importance of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and its goal of protecting people of all social and economic backgrounds from abuse. But the court found in this case that the record was limited, without supporting evidence about the exact content of the texts and the dates they were received. The court ruled that J.S.'s statements to Maenza also "were not an admission of the conduct and he specifically denied an intent to harass."


Judges Violate the Code of Judicial Conduct

Location: County of Miami Dade: Family Court Services, 175 Northwest 1st Avenue #1503, Miami, FL 33128, USA

With the Bench Cozied Up to the Bar, the Lawyers Can't Lose

Dennis G. Jacobs, the chief judge of the federal appeals court in New York, is a candid man, and in a speech last year he admitted that he and his colleagues had ''a serious and secret bias.'' Perhaps unthinkingly but quite consistently, he said, judges can be counted on to rule in favor of anything that protects and empowers lawyers.  Read more… 777 more words

How Judges Violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, Commit Fraud Upon the Court, and Commit Crimes against Parties

Posted in Children’s Rights Facebook Support Group ~~

Dear Custody Judge:

I am writing this letter in support of a joint legal custody arrangement with physical custody of 50-50 whenever feasible and practical. Of course, this recommendation assumes that there is no child protective supervision of one of the parents or that a parent has been evaluated to be socially deviant or mentally impaired to the degree that parenting will be compromised.

I am making this recommendation based upon my 43 years of professional experience working with families and children, my initial 24 years as a social worker and then as an administrator in New York's foster care system and subsequently for 19 years as a family therapist currently in private practice. In my professional career, I have worked with several thousand children who had been placed in foster care and, in my practice as a family therapist, with more than 500 children who have experienced their parent’s high conflict divorce.

Based on my experiences with these populations, I have arrived at the conclusion that both parents must remain substantially and meaningfully involved with their child for the child to obtain optimal development and functioning and likely to escape serious mental health and behavioral symptoms. This conclusion has been validated by extensive research, including but not limited to, the research that was offered in support of Arizona's recently enacted shared parenting law. 

Additionally, I have further determined that when the residential parent marginalizes the nonresidential parent with decreased parenting time, it is frequently an alienating maneuver----the goal being to eradicate the nonresidential parent from the child's life. Any effort, therefore, by the residential parent to object to equal, or at least substantial, parenting time for the other parent should at least raise a question as to the residential parent’s recognition of the importance of the other parent to the child.

In further support of my shared parenting recommendation, let me state emphatically that the customary visitation arrangement for the nonresidential parent to have every other weekend and one night during the week in parenting time garners absolutely no evidence-based or anecdotal support and no scientific research for serving the best interests of the child. It is unclear how this customary arrangement has gained such wide acceptance other than to hypothesize that it developed from the contention that children need stability. 


Supreme Court Overrides Statutory Parental Rights

Location: County of Miami Dade: Family Court Services, 175 Northwest 1st Avenue #1503, Miami, FL 33128, USA

ParentalRights.org logo
Sign the PetitionDonateVolunteerLearn MoreView Online

-- August 25, 2015
What happens when a parent’s statutory right to make decisions comes against a court order to the contrary? If the child is in the custody of the state of Maine, the answer is very much up to the judge.
That’s the take away from the decision In Re: Z.S. handed down by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court last week.
According to Maine law, parents have a statutory right to opt their child out of the state’s general vaccination requirement based on a sincerely held religious belief or other philosophical exemption. The mother of Z.S. had chosen to exercise that right based on her beliefs regarding vaccines and disease.
At issue in the appeal from a lower court was whether the lower court judge could override this statutory right (a right reserved explicitly by state statute) without first terminating the mother’s parental rights.Ordinarily, termination of rights requires the high “clear and convincing evidence” standard, while a custody ruling requires only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
In this case, the mother was found to be negligent based on accusations not related to vaccines. The “preponderance” standard was met and the child was held in state custody. But in his custody ruling the judge also called for the Child Welfare department to override the mother’s statutory right to opt out of vaccination while the child was in custody. The mother appealed this violation of her statutory right.

Search This Blog





"So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." (Tecumseh).

American Fathers Liberation: ALL Men’s Rights are Human Rights. ’nuff said http://bit.ly/1JgMgEm

Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Tuesday, August 18, 2015