One of these organizations is Leading Woman for Shared Parenting (LW4SP). Founded on Father’s Day in 2013, LW4SP is an ‘international child advocacy organization’ which supports ‘the implementation of a presumption of shared parenting as a standard in child custody determinations’. Boasting influential women from a range of disciplines, political parties and all walks of life (including the recently deceased Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in the 1970s, and the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly), LW4SP raises eyebrows because fighting for ‘shared parenting’ has, until now, mainly been a ‘father’s rights’ issue.
The essence of shared parenting can be gleaned fairly easily from its name: divorced parents should be able to ‘share’ the parenting of their children, specifically in the sense that they should have shared physical custody of the child as much as possible. The US arrangement of ‘joint custody’ is not good enough, since in this arrangement the child is assigned to live with one parent, while the other parent is consigned to a much lesser share of access to the child.
Source: The Conservative Woman | Post by Holly Hamilton-Bleakley Posted 10th August 2014
Romeo and Ice Cube together again. Watch this now!
Posted by Romeo Misses a Payment on Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Romeo against the world trailer!
It really is about keeping the faith, doing our best as parents and human beings.
Posted by Romeo Misses a Payment on Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Romeo said to send you this. Watch this now!
Posted by Romeo Misses a Payment on Saturday, January 31, 2015
Congressional Republicans have taken enormous criticism from Democrats, feminists and the mainstream media for making modest reductions in federal subsidies to state child support enforcement efforts. Because these enforcement programs are popular on the left, child support enforcement agencies have long been able to operate with few questions asked. A highly publicized new California court ruling demonstrates why it’s time to bring restraint and oversight to this area of government.Taron James of Torrance, Calif., a decorated Navy veteran, carried out hazardous reconnaissance missions behind Iraqi lines in the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War. While overseas, James was notified that a woman he knew back home was demanding that he pay child support for her newborn son. Los Angeles County entered a default paternity judgment against James, in part because James’ military commitments made it difficult for him to defend himself.Despite DNA evidence that James was not the father, the county garnisheed James’ wages for a decade and employed numerous punitive measures against him, costing him a management position and forcing him to drop out of college. James eventually got the judgment set aside, but last week a California Court of Appeal refused to order that James be reimbursed for the wages the county garnisheed.Unfortunately, the Taron James case is not uncommon. Many men – particularly those in the military – are targets of abusive child support enforcement practices. While states receive federal funds for every child support dollar they collect, there are scant penalties for abuses. As a result, enforcement agencies have little incentive to give targeted men due process, to fix mistakes, or to write off erroneously or unfairly accrued debt. Instead, the bureaucracy simply charges ahead in trying to collect as much as possible.Another abuse suffered by deployed military personnel is the child support system’s resistance or refusal to adjust reservists’ child support obligations after they are called up to active duty. Child support orders are based on a reservists’ civilian pay. When called up, a reservist’s support obligation can jump overnight from 30 or 40 percent of take-home pay to 60 or 70 percent.Downward modifications are not easy to obtain under any circumstances, and reservists are sometimes mobilized with as little as one day’s notice. Many reservists fall behind because they are not able to resolve the issue before they leave nor while they’re deployed. The child support obligor can be economically crippled by a barrage of harsh penalties, including seizure of driver’s licenses and business licenses, or even be incarcerated.The 18th–19th century French diplomat Talleyrand is known for the phrase “It’s worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.” What was done to Taron James was a crime, but many more men are victims of child support enforcement mistakes. Child support bureaucracies are notorious for their computer errors, assignments of phony or inflated arrearages and overall bureaucratic bungling. Because of the stilted way incentive funds are structured, errors are fixed very slowly, if at all.To cite one tragic example, last April, Herbert Chalmers of St. Louis, Mo., killed himself and three others, including two members of the family whose business was garnisheeing his wages. Chalmers’ withholding had been doubled and he was left with only $400 a month from his paychecks. He claimed he was the victim of a child support enforcement error, but it was only after the killings that an investigation was conducted. The result? According to state officials, Chalmers had been correct – due to a clerical error, he was being garnisheed five times what he actually owed.Sometimes those targeted by child support enforcement aren’t even fathers. Last summer, the Florida Department of Children demanded that Timothy Williams, a teenage boy, pay child support for several children. With Timothy under threat of arrest, in desperation his mother went to one state agency after another to resolve the problem, to no avail. It was only after an Orlando, Fla., television station exposed the case that FDCF backed off.Innocent men are sometimes publicly humiliated by child support enforcement mistakes. For example, when the Louisville Courier-Journal published the names and addresses of 1,000 alleged child support scofflaws in 2005 on behalf of Jefferson County, they listed James H. Frazier as a deadbeat who owes $57,000. Unfortunately, they listed his name above the home address of James R. Frazier.WAVE 3 TV in Louisville reported that James R. Frazier and his wife, Bertha – both of whom seethed at being publicly humiliated – had been erroneously targeted before, and had spent years fighting to straighten out the error. The county had previously acknowledged its mistake – and then went ahead and published the erroneous information anyway.One of the reasons child support enforcement agencies are able to abuse citizens with impunity is the widespread myth that they collect $4 for every dollar they spend. The mainstream media, which has largely opposed the Republican cuts, has failed to point out this obvious Enron-style accounting. Over $20 billion in child support is collected nationwide yearly, and only $5 billion is spent on enforcement. However, the vast majority of the $20 billion isn’t collected – it’s received. These are simply the payments already being made by law-abiding fathers, and will continue regardless of the cuts. The $4 myth was created by incorrectly counterposing total collections with expenditures on enforcement. Research shows that child support enforcement funds are often frittered away in misguided attempts to collect artificially inflated paper arrearages from low-income men who couldn’t possibly pay them.In 1998, Congress held extensive hearings on the myriad abuses committed by the Internal Revenue Service against law-abiding citizens. What few realize is that there are a similar number of men, fathers and families who have been victims of the same types of abuses by child support enforcement agencies. Because federal funding helps shape the way child support enforcement bureaucracies operate, similar hearings are needed to investigate and remedy these abuses.Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2007/06/42280/#qWXDKLi32IB09hSj.99
Posted by Romeo Misses a Payment on Thursday, January 29, 2015
- Minimize the emotional upheaval experienced by children during and after parental separation,
- Promote every child's Civil Right to equal access to both parents and extended families regardless of the parents' marital status, and
- End the adversarial process in divorce and custody matters.
- Promote equal parental responsibility for children's nurturing,
- Promote equal parental responsibility for children's financial needs,
- Encourage alternatives to divorce,
- Promote the position that children are not property,
- End parental alienation,
- Eliminate profit motivation in child custody disputes,
- Provide positive parental role models for separating families,
- Prevent the use of false child abuse and spousal abuse allegations as leverage in child custody disputes,
- Establish mandatory penalties for false allegations of child and spousal abuse,
- Promote equal treatment of family court litigants,
- Enforce existing laws providing for gender equality in family court, and
- Establish a shelter for displaced fathers and children.
SENTĪNAE: (Lat) Dregs (of society)
I am finding it difficult to write this without a mixture of emotions. I am not easily shocked and am fortunate to have been able to develop a thick skin over the years. Some things get through of course, I would not be human if some of the things I have seen and experienced in my fifty years on this planet had not left an indelible mark. 
Nay Seal is slapped in the face.
Posted by Romeo Misses a Payment on Saturday, December 5, 2015
It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."