Fathers' and Children's Equality, Inc. (FACE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, all volunteer, educational organization and support and self-help group for noncustodial parents and their families. We are not lawyers. We educate the public regarding our areas of interest pertaining to families. We educate our members as to their rights and responsibilities as parents, help them effectively represent themselves in court, and show them how to manage their own cases, regardless of whether or not they choose to use a lawyer.
Our areas of interest and expertise are:
Divorce - Child custody - Parenting time (the ONLY real child support) - Financial child support - Financial planning for family court litigants - Parental alienation - Paternity fraud - False allegations of child abuse - False allegations of domestic abuse
- Services for male victims of domestic violence
Where can family court litigants learn everything they need to know? Court employees will say "I can't give you legal advice." Some court employees are interested only in getting information from you to enforce orders, but won't give any information to you. The court's on-line pro se documents tell you how to file papers, but not what you need to write in those papers. The judge will say "I'm not your lawyer," and urge you to hire one. Your lawyer, as an "officer of the court," is sometimes prohibited from telling you everything you should know and, in some cases, will withhold information because it is not in his best interest for you to know too much. Advice on the internet is usually unreliable, incomplete or inapplicable. Your friends who have not been through family court will tell you the way they think things should be, or tell you what you want to hear. Where can you get the information you need?
Laws, court rules, court procedures and court customs are different from state to state. FACE is based in New Jersey. Our legal expertise is primarily in family court in New Jersey and, to a lesser degree, a few other nearby states. Although FACE welcomes all new members, we strongly suggest that you find and join and participate in a support group in the state that has jurisdiction in your case. If no such group exists in your state, we will welcome you to join FACE, and also recommend that you join one of the national noncustodial parents' rights groups. If you can't find such a group, contact FACE for referrals.
Fatherlessness impairs children's ability to learn. Fatherless children score lower on cognitive tests, and 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children are 40% more vulnerable to sickness and 30% more likely to be injured in an accident.
Children learn from their fathers to put limitations on their own behavior. There is a correlation within a community between the percentage of fatherless households and the rates of violent crime and burglary. Five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record are from homes where the father was absent. 60% of America's rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long term prison inmates grew up without fathers.
More than 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals are from fatherless homes, as are 75% of chemical addicted children, 90% of teenage runaways, and three out of four teenage suicides.
Fatherless adolescents, having grown up without healthy male role models, tend to make irresponsible decisions in their relationships with the opposite sex. Fatherless girls too often have difficulty distinguishing the difference between affection and sex, and account for 71% of teenage pregnancies. Adults raised without fathers are far less likely to ever develop a healthy, loving, long-term relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
No research exists showing that one parent is better than two, nor that sole custody of children offers benefits that joint legal and shared physical custody does not. Yet our family courts continue to ignore all of these facts. They "award" primary residential parent status to the mother in about 90% of cases, reduce their father to a "visitor" and a paycheck, and claim to have done so "in the best interest of the child." *Children are not property to be owned nor prizes in a game. They are human beings.
FACE supports every child's right to a full, loving, nurturing relationship with two parents, four grandparents, and all of the aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides of the family, regardless of the parents' marital status. This right to enjoy a parent-child relationship has been recognized as a Liberty Interest and upheld as a Civil Right by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The trend toward fatherlessness is destroying our families and the social fabric of our nation. Join FACE and find out what you can do to reverse it -- in our laws, in the courts, and in your family. * Nowhere in the law is "in the best interest of the child" defined.
Who we are NOT
As you surf the web, you may find other websites that promise to solve all your family court problems and give you the information you need to "win"* your case. They say just send some money (usually a few hundred dollars or more) and they will send you a packet of documents containing winning strategies, or papers you can file to "restore your rights," or (for some more money) access to them as "legal consultants." Some will offer their services as "paralegals" and say they will write and file your papers, or maybe even present your case to the court for you.
An envelope-full of photocopies of magazine articles and webpages from a stranger far away is not a solution. It's a SCAM, often perpetrated by an "organization" of only one person, who would take advantage of others in their moments of desperation or helplessness. New Jersey law does not recognize or authorize "paralegals" (except in certain circumstances, working for and under the direction of a licensed attorney). A non-lawyer who accepts money to prepare legal papers or represent you in New Jersey is committing the crime of Unauthorized Practice of Law(N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22), a crime of the fourth degree, and is subject to fines, incarceration and/or civil damages.
THERE IS NO QUICK FIX; THERE IS NO MAGIC WAND. A satisfactory resolution to child custody and other family court issues takes education, proven winning strategies that have worked in your state, tenacity and vigilance. Deal only with legitimate support groups.
* Actually, no one "wins" in family court -- not mom, not dad, not the children. The only winners in family court are the judges, the lawyers, the psychologists, the social workers, the child support workers, etc., etc. They are the only beneficiaries of the multi-billion dollar family destruction industry.
Family Law Reform PAC
FACE is a grass-roots, all-volunteer organization. We operate with a very small budget. Although much of the change FACE supports and promotes involves family-friendly legislators being elected, family-friendly laws being enacted and some existing laws being changed, to protect and preserve our 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, FACE does no lobbying.
Under Internal Revenue Service regulations, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization remains eligible for tax-exempt status so long as "... no substantial part of the activities of [the organization] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)) ..." The "no substantial part" test is generally considered to be spending not more than 20% of its annual budget on lobbying. The IRS defines "lobbying" as "attempting to influence legislation or influence the outcome of an election."
Some FACE members, acting individually as private citizens, may elect to exercise their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression by petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or supporting or opposing certain pieces of pending legislation, or supporting or opposing the election campaigns of certain candidates for political office. If they do this, such activity is completely independent of and unrelated to their membership in FACE.
In the mid-1990s another New Jersey-based parents' and children's rights support group formed an independent political action committee (PAC) under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. This has evolved to become the Family Law Reform Political Action Committee (FLR-PAC). Unlike a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, a PAC's purpose is to influence legislation and the outcomes of elections. Although the PAC is tax-exempt contributions to the PAC are not tax-exempt for the donor.
Membership in the PAC is open to anyone who makes a modest annual non-tax-deductible donation. Individuals who would like to lobby or otherwise become politically active, but would be more comfortable working within a group, might consider joining FLR-PAC. FLR-PAC meets at central-New Jersey locations. For meeting times and locations, or to volunteer for FLR-PAC activities, contact Ed Kilbourne at ekilbourne@facenj.org .
FACE IS A SELF-HELP GROUP. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS. WE DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. WE CAN NOT AND DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE IN COURT. If you find a competent, capable lawyer who fully understands your and your children's rights, who is willing and able to tenaciously fight to secure those rights, who completely understands the facts in your case, and who you can afford to pay, you should hire that lawyer and seek that lawyer's advice. If you cannot find or afford to pay such a lawyer, we urge you to seek all available resources to aid yourself in securing these rights.
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."