Are there more fathers of divorce or separation who want to support their children emotionally and financially, or are there more dads who abandon their children and walk away willfully and uncaringly without looking back?

Child custody and support laws have become more onerous over the last 50 years due to fewer parents staying together and women becoming equally as capable as men at earning a living outside the home.  Instead of reflecting these changes, the laws have lagged behind, continuing to favor mothers over fathers. The laws generally award primary custody to the parent who spent more time at home with the children and less time working, even if the difference was miniscule. The other parent is then ordered to pay a crushing amount of child support, sometimes on top of alimony. In a small percentage of situations, usually where the father was the primary caregiver, this situation is reversed and the laws punish the mother.

Although a few small changes have been made to the laws within the last few years, due to exposure and the efforts of advocacy organizations, there has not been significant progress. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 84 percent of custodial parents are mothers, a figure that has not changed since 1983. This is unfortunate, because Canadian economist Paul Miller analyzed data on families and found that “parental gender is not a…predictor at all of any of the child outcomes examined, that is behavioral, educational or health outcomes.” The children often end up with “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” developing a dislike for the noncustodial parent bought on by the custodial parent.

Rachel Alexander – Townhall.com

WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL ISSUE?

American Fathers Liberation Armyplus.google.com

Rights of Non-Custodial Parents - Top 10 Reasons Why Family Courts are Unfair & Expensive

Interference with Parental Rights of Noncustodial Parent as Grounds for Modification of Child Custody

by Edward B. Borris

Introduction

Interference by one parent in the relationship of a child and the other parent is almost never in the child's best interests. In fact, in extreme cases, actions by one parent to alienate the affections of the child from the other parent, to interfere win the other parent's visitation rights, or to remove the child to a distant state or country can often lead to liability in tort. See generally E. Borris, "Torts Arising Out of Interference with Custody and Visitation," 7 Divorce Litigation 192 (1995). Tort liability is not always an option, however, as many courts refuse to award damages based upon interference with visitation rights. E.g., Cosner v. Ridinger, 882 P.2d 1243 (Wyo.1994).

A noncustodial parent is not always left without a remedy, however, simply because courts in that parent's jurisdiction refuse to recognize tort actions arising out of interference with his or her parental rights. This article discusses a different type of liability which may result from interference with the noncustodial parent's rights: loss of custody. The article will first discuss whether a party may generally obtain a change of custody based upon such interference. The article will then examine specific acts by a custodial parent which may cause a court to change custody, including denial of visitation rights, alienation of the child's affections away from the noncustodial parent, and removal of the child to a distant jurisdiction. The section on alienation of the child's affections includes a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and recent cases that have dealt with PAS. The article concludes with a suggestion of possible provisions that practitioners may insert in custody decrees in order to prevent future problems between custodial and noncustodial parents.

Interference Amounting to a Substantial Change in Circumstances

Most courts and experts agree that except in unusual cases it is most important for a child to have a strong relationship with both parents. Thus, courts will typically conclude that an award of custody to the parent who is most likely to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent is in the child's best interests. For this reason, if a custodial parent has demonstrated in the past a pattern of interference with the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, unless other facts dictate a different holding, courts will frequently conclude that a substantial change in circumstances justifying a change of custody has occurred.

Not surprisingly, there is a long-standing tradition of awarding a change of custody where the custodial parent has interfered with the parental rights of the other parent. The Court of Appeals of Maryland clearly established this point in Berlin v. Berlin, 239 Md. 52, 210 A.2d 380 (1965). In Berlin, the parties entered into a written separation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, incorporated into the court's order, custody of the children was awarded to the mother, and the father received reasonable visitation rights. In addition, the parties also agreed that the mother would notify the father if the mother moved out of the Washington metropolitan area. Subsequently, the mother began denying the father his right to visitation. For this reason, the father requested a change in custody. The trial court granted the father's request, and the mother appealed.

Specific Acts of Interference Which May Cause a Court to Change Custody

Courageous Kids

Courageous Kids


Stories straight from the mouths of children who have lived through abuse, court corruption, and being taken away from a fit and loving parent: 

The effects of divorce on children vary widely dependent on age, gender, the reason(s) for divorce, financial and social status, family support and a wide array of other factors. These effects can range from mild to severe.

However, when the final result of the divorce, either immediately or years afterwards, is the minimization or removal of a relationship with the Non-Custodial parent, the effects on children are devastating.

The unfortunate part is that too many Custodial Parents fail to acknowledge the invisible and irreparable emotional scars left on their children by not encouraging a positive, loving relationship with the Non-Custodial parent. In some cases the custodial parent even believes they are encouraging such a relationship; yet they move the children to the next town, the next county or in the worst cases, across the country from the Non-Custodial parent; all the while saying, "Oh sure, I encourage a relationship with their Mother/Father!" In some of these cases the parent/child relationship does thrive to a good extent. But never to the extent that it would had the children not been moved away.

The children who are used as pawns in a game of control and manipulation suffer long term emotional wounds they will carry with them for the rest of their life. They lose time with the Non-Custodial parent that they will never get back. Little momentous occasions such as riding a bike for the first time without training wheels, getting on a school bus for the first time, hitting their first home-run, their first school dance, their first prom date. The list goes on and on. The vengeful custodial parent sees these events as being taken away from their former spouse, when in reality the children are harmed just as bad if not worse than the non-custodial parent.

Adults can figure out ways to deal with the anger and grief caused by such narcissistic moves; children cannot. 

Even more unfortunate is that many custodial parents do not realize that it's their own adult relationship with their children which they are putting in jeopardy when they bad mouth, insult, and otherwise degrade the non-custodial parent. When a custodial parent moves children away from the non-custodial parent for no other reason(s) than a better job, a better home, to be closer to relatives; the children do grow to resent the custodial parent. This is shown through many examples of Non Custodial parents whose children are now grown and have left the custodial parent to live with the parent they were separated from. In most cases, there is still love present, but it's respect that is lost. Too many custodial parents believe that their children will be children forever and cannot see past their immediate need to maintain control over a former spouse. 

Some of the obvious effects on a child from being separated from a fit and loving parent are:
  
Emotional Immaturity - Some children subconsciously do not want to "grow up" without the other parent around to experience it. Out of love for the absent parent, they attempt to remain a child for as long as possible, in the hopes there may be a reunification and things can pick up where they left off. 

Conflicting Loyalties - In a large number of cases, children feel conflicting loyalties toward parents. This is especially true when one parent "bribes" or manipulates the children's loyalty with money or promises of great things if they don't go with the other parent. Conflicting loyalties is especially hard when one parent or the other makes the children feel guilty if they express desire to change primary residence. "Oh, if you want to go and live with your Mother then you must not love me!". Comments such as these are extremely confusing to a child; especially if the other parent shows love and respect for them, no matter what their decision is.

In a high percentage of these cases, the children will lean toward and stay with the parent who applies the guilt; until they are older and able to process the information on a mature level. At that point, it goes back to the loss of respect for the parent who applied the guilt.

Difficulty in Communicating Feelings - Children who are separated from a fit and loving parent with whom they once had a relationship have a hard, if not impossible, time trying to put the grief and confusion into words. Even to an adult, the removal of a fit and loving parent from a child's life makes no sense and borders on insanity. Imagine the grief and utter confusion which goes on in the mind of a child. 

Temper Tantrums - Temper Tantrums are typically caused by a child not knowing how to communicate his feelings (as stated above). Acting out with anger and frustration become the only way a child knows how to get his feelings "out". 

Minimizing the Effects 

With all that being said, it's critical for Non Custodial parents to do their best to continue taking the "high road" and not trying to "counter" the Custodial parents alienation attempts with alienation attempts of their own. It's critical to always do your best with the resources you have on a given day. Remember that your children will one day grow up and look back at who truly acted in their best interest in regard to their relationship with the other parent. When children reach a mature age, they will very clearly see that a nice house, a slightly better school, a slightly higher paying job... none of it was worth losing a fit and loving parent over. When children grow, they will remember the negative comments made by one parent about the other and they will be able to analyze those statements to determine if they were true or false.

One of the best ways you can help minimize the effects on your child(ren) is to DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT! Keep a binder, or ten binders if you must, with every hearing, every transcript, every e-mail, anything and everything you can keep to show your children when they become adults how and why things happened the way they did. Keep in touch with old friends that may even have appeared to be on your X's side during the divorce. It's another interesting phenomena (if you want to call it that) how the truth always prevails and people eventually see through lies and manipulation.

The Courageous Kids Network is a growing group of young people, whose childhoods were shattered by inhumane court rulings, which forced us to live with our abusive parent, while restricting or sometimes completely eliminating contact with our loving and protective parent. We who survived got older and stronger. Now we are telling the world how much we were hurt, first by our abusers then by the court which refused to protect us. We are joining together to find strength, support and healing. We welcome contact from any kids who may need to talk, and who need to know they are not the only ones experiencing these issues.

U.S. Citizen Parent whose Son has been wrongfully retained abroad.

Greetings:

As a nurturing and loving father, and as a Nam Vet swore to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic," I have been litigating since January 27, 2003, to protect my residual parental and visitation rights in accordance with a joint custody agreement mandated protected by Federal and Virginia Code, a Treaty, and U.S. & Virginia Constitutions--against the illegal anti-fathers rights policies of the U.S. State Dept., U.S. Dept of Justice, the Federal Court, and Virginia Courts.

Thus I have recently requested both the Governor and Legislature of Virginia, President Bush, and members of Congress to direct both the Attorney General of Virginia, and the Solicitor General of the United States to file a response to my Son's and my petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court,*(("*") indicates note located below), to compel compliance of both the Executive and Judicial Branches with the mandates of Congress and the General Assembly of Virginia.**

Obviously, the assuring of compliance with the legal mandates of Congress, and the General Assembly of Virginia, protection of the residual and visitation rights of all U.S. citizen fathers is one of general policy concerns affecting the rights of all fathers and not just a question of the illegal violation of my rights as a father in this specific litigation.

I note that I wrote the President beginning in January 2002, as to DOJ and State's obstructing my visitation rights as a father, and opposed the nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts because he violated 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4, 371 and 1001, by making intentional false statements to Congress(see statement located below. See alsohttp://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/***

Therefor the record confirm the fact that as a U.S. citizen parent whose Son has been wrongfully retained abroad in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1204, I have been placed in the worse position by the Executive and Judicial Branches of Federal Government because they do not permit my Son as a U.S. citizen return home to the U.S., or refuse to secure visitation as mandated by both Federal and State law.****

I stress that my son and my challenges to the violations of the Bush Administration, as well as the Federal and State Judiciary, is not based on any disrespect, but rather a belief in the limitations on government under our Constitution----because if the Bush Administration, and Federal and State judges, acting outside their jurisdiction and judicial capacity, can disregard the substantive rights of U.S. citizen fathers with impunity--as well as deny the ability to challenge their actions, then they have unlimited power and this in itself is a violation of the Constitution and the right of all citizens of the United States.*****

As has been stated in the past, "[u]nlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins."Lord Chatham (William Pitt) to the British House of Lords in January 1770 (Emphasis added).

Therefor I request that you write the Attorney General of Virginia and the Solicitor General of the United States, requesting that they file a response briefs to the motion for a TRO/PI pending before Associate Justice Paul Stevens, since the Chief Justice is disqualified, so to the Courts of Virginia to secure my Son's visit to the U.S.A. with his father for his 2006 Summer and Christmas vacations, and to the petition for certiorari.

In closing as an experienced civil rights attorney who for the past 30 years has litigated against the abuse of authority by government officials, I know that there is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice. Therefore my actions are also on behalf of all fathers who are unable to locate an attorney with the ability or strength to fight the violation of law judiciary acting outside of their jurisdiction.

I thank you beforehand for your prompt consideration.

Very truly yours,


Mr. Isidoro Rodriguez

Judge Judy Sheindlin on False Allegations of Domestic Violence

Judge Judy Sheindlin on Joint Custody Read the entire transcript

When Judy Sheindlin was on Larry King Live last week, the issue of joint custody came up. Here is an excerpt from the interview:

SHEINDLIN ("Judge Judy"): I was a lawyer in the family court for ten years. I worked for the corporation counsel's office of the City of New York. I prosecuted juvenile delinquency cases. I did support and paternity. So, I was in the trenches and even then, Larry, it took me time.

I remember the first day that I took the bench. It was in the Bronx and the court officers, if was pretty formal back then, court officer said, you know, say "All rise" and I stood up because I was accustomed to they say "All rise." We stood and finally the court officer said "You can sit down now, judge. They're standing for you. You can sit down." So, even when you have experience you need time to get comfortable in your chair.

KING: I had a judge who became a federal judge told me once that the hardest thing to decide was custody cases. First he had no experience. Who has experience with custody cases? He's been happily married, has children. Who gets whom? Isn't that the hardest to give a child from one parent to another?

SHEINDLIN: Yes. Sometimes it's relatively easy because the choices are clear but I've always thought in this country we do a terrible disservice to fathers. You know there was a time many years ago when we had what we called the Tender Years Doctrine, which meant children of tender years, young children, always went to their mother.

And then all of the courts in this country said that's not fair. We have to be equal. So, on the books there is a law that says no one parent is favored over the other, now that's honored more in the breach than it is honored in actuality. And, I have been a proponent for many years of there being a presumption in this country for joint custody of children. That's where courts should start.

KING: That's where you begin?

SHEINDLIN: That's where you begin and if you're going to deviate from that, you have to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is some valid reason why you're going to deviate from that because one parent is crazy, one parent has a drug problem, an alcohol problem, something's wrong.

But that should be the standard joint custody because children are entitled to be raised by two parents even if the parents don't get along anymore. I mean I think it's horrendous when one parent picks up and moves out of the state or moves 250 miles away and some judge in the family court, the domestic relations court usually if it's the mother who has moved away says, "Well, we'll have a hearing to determine whether it was the right thing."

No, no, no, no, no. You can't say to people who you've lulled into this sense of I'm equal, you're an equal father. You can take off paternity leave. We expect you to participate in the rearing of your children, to go to open school night, to be out there to play with them. Very often there are two people working in the household. They divide authority and you're equal except when there's a divorce.

And then, how often, Larry, I ask you the question, do you hear it quoted in the paper "He lost custody of his children"? You don't hear that. You hear "She lost custody. There must be something wrong with her."

Well I think that that has to change in this country because it was my experience in the family court, and I left the family court ten years ago, but even my experience on the television courtroom suggests to me that there are as wonderful a group of fathers out there as a group of mothers and it's about time that this country recognize that in not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.

Judge Judy Sheindlin on Custody

"Most state laws require that courts treat mothers and fathers equally when it comes to matters of child custody. When I presided as a judge in Manhattan family court, that was the law, and that's how I treated each custody case. Families, especially children, suffer when this law is not followed. Unfortunately, I've seen this happen all too often. What has been your experience with this difficult subject? I look forward to your stories." ~ Judge Judy

Who Gets Custody and the crime of parental alienation at the hands of our dysfunctional family court system - "Systems Induced Trauma"

WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL ISSUE?

ASTOUNDING COURT NEWS

JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG:

The Florida Supreme Court assembled a panel of 4 Judges in Miami on February 23rd, 2015. 

11th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Honorable Bertila Soto was there. So were a host of other Judges from the 17th Judicial Circuit and 3rd DCA. 

 ~ Here are OUR current campaigns ~

STOP Court’s DENIAL of REASONABLE Parent/Child CONTACT

Stop Court Ordered Parental Alienation and Judicial MisconductFLORIDA! STOP VIOLATING PARENT’S RIGHTS/STOP ALIENATING PARENTS FROM THEIR CHILDREN! FLORIDA CASES OF DENIAL OF CONTACT OF “FIT” PARENTS SIMILAR TO THIS CAUSE’S CASE.: CAUSES.COM – FLORIDA! STOP VIOLATING PARENT’S RIGHTS/STOP ALIENATING PARENTS FROM THEIR CHILDREN!

”This crime of parental alienation at the hands of our court system…

Let’s Join Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform! 

 Let us make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protection

Family Court System Reform – Revamp Laws That Damage Families and Only Benefit Matrimonial Lawyers and Court “Experts” Families & Children are being devastated by family court system greed. Over 120,000 families per year are bankrupted by predatory matrimonial attorneys and the family court system through self serving laws and court rules. The National Family…

Adopt Uniform Parenting Time Guidelines

Repeal Inconsistent Rules and Presumptions – Ask the Family Court to adopt uniform rules requiring equal parenting time