Parental Rights // Current

Experts Concerned About Experience Of Newly Elected Judges

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Soon five new district judges will preside over courtrooms in Mecklenburg County. The worry with some... more

regjoeschmo
added this

Free speach violations in Pittsburgh

A peaceful demonstration was interupted by security at the steelers' stadium. Personal property was stolen by local police... more

regjoeschmo
added this

State sanctioned kidnapping

Watch, listen, learn......

regjoeschmo
added this

Is it really the ex's fault?

The answer is NO and you are about to learn why. It is not Ex-spouses, Ex-Girlfriends, and Ex-Boyfriends that are causing/creating... more

laryholland
added this

High-profile divorce lawyer accused of harassment, lying to judge

One of Northeast Ohio's highest-profile divorce lawyers is accused of lying to a judge, ignoring court orders and harassing... more

regjoeschmo
added this

Precedent Setting 1972 Case about a State’s Right to Discriminate Against Fathers

“The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection."

Over the past 35 years, our Supreme Court has handed down a number of decisions that affect the rights of parents, and, in particular, fathers. I think these cases are a good way to look at how we all got where we are now, and some cases may provide hope for advancing gender equality in the future. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) is about a state’s right to discriminate against men in terms of parenting.

“Under Illinois law […] children of unwed fathers become wards of the state upon the death of the mother.” Peter Stanley had just lost his wife, and the state of Illinois started dependency proceedings intended to remove Stanley’s three children from his custody, and move them into foster homes.

Stanley appealed the decision, and lost every appeal, including the Illinois Supreme Court. On appeal to the US Supreme Court, he argued that married fathers and unmarried mothers were not presumed to be unfit parents, so the equal protection doctrine should prohibit the state from removing his children simply because he was a father and was not married. We should all be glad that the Court agreed.

The state courts suggested that there was no equal protection problem, because Stanley could adopt or foster his children as easily as any married parent or unmarried mother could simply care for their child. The Supreme Court pointed out that Stanley had “been treated differently” and that the Court does not believe, “a wrong may be done if it can be undone. […] [I]f there is delay between the doing and the undoing [Father] suffers from the deprivation of his children […].”

As with many appellate court decisions, the Court reduced the case to one (in most cases it is a few) question: “Is a presumption that distinguishes and burdens all unwed fathers constitutionally repugnant?” The Court determined that the State, “denied Stanley the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

While the Court ended up returning Stanley’s children to him, and acknowledging the irreparable damage that had been done to the family because of the state, the Court’s reasoning included several statements that are, to this day, included in cases regarding family, parental and father’s rights. I really enjoy quoting cases like this, so here’s a bunch of them from this case…pick your favorites.

“The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent... more

regjoeschmo
added this

4 responses

21 days ago

Center for Parental Responsibility

Center for Parental Responsibility CPR was founded in January 2003 by a grass roots group of concerned citizens affected by... more

regjoeschmo
added this

3 responses

24 days ago

OPENING of Parental Alienation Play at Bleecker St. Theatre in NYC!!

Madmen and Dreamers presents: "The Children Of Children", which is a Rock Musical whose subject touches nearly everyone... more

TheLeePASFoundation
added this

3 responses

27 days ago

SafeNet shelter director ordered to stay away from kids

What happens when an abuse shelter engages in conduct that is so unethical and bizarre that the public almost can't believe... more

regjoeschmo
added this

6 responses

29 days ago

The intellectual perversion of the VAWA Mafia

When professor Suzanne Steinmetz published the results of her survey on domestic violence, no one had prepared her for the... more

regjoeschmo
added this

11 responses

29 days ago

EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS

Last updated: September 2008 SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 246 scholarly investigations: 187 empirical studies and 59... more

regjoeschmo
added this

2 responses

29 days ago

Lighting Candles World Wide

Imagine for a moment Lighting Candles World Wide and all at the same time. Imagine your child knowing we are Lighting Candles... more

regjoeschmo
added this

2 responses

1 month ago

Why let DNA get in the way of child support??

Convicted and incarcerated for possession of drugs in 2002, Brande Samuels made a deal. He promised himself and his family... more

regjoeschmo
added this

4 responses

1 month ago

Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2008 — California Leads the Way

The saying “As goes California, so goes the Nation,” never has been more true than for Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2008. On October 14, the California courts led the nation in bringing public awareness to a previously hidden Domestic Violence issue — that of battered men — and subsequently ruled that battered men deserve equal protection under the law.

Facing squarely the reality of Domestic Violence against men, the California Court of Appeals ruled that: “We find the gender-based classifications in the challenged statutes that provide programs for victims of domestic violence violate equal protection. We find male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for purposes of the statutory programs and no compelling state interest justifies the gender classification. We reform the affected statutes by invalidating the exemption of males and extending the statutory benefits to men, whom the Legislature improperly excluded.” (page 2).

The California court ruling was based, in part, on empirical research undertaken by hundreds of social scientists who have helped to provide “the rest of the story.” This research has demonstrated that both men and women initiate Domestic Violence at roughly equal rates with some recent studies suggesting that the initiation rates for girls and women may be increasing. Furthermore, approximately 40% of the physically harmed victims of Domestic Violence are men.

The implications of the California Appellate Court ruling are clear, compelling, and require a fundamental revision of all State and Federal Domestic Violence legislation to fully recognize the need for equal treatment of battered men under the law. It is particularly important to revise the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and replace it with a Domestic Violence Act that stands in compliance with the California court ruling. By its name alone, the Violence Against Women Act now is both Unconstitutional and scientifically misleading.

Hopefully, the long-term impact of the California ruling will be to raise public and political awareness to the reality that Domestic Violence truly is an equal opportunity affliction. Since the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden both is the father of VAWA and a self-defined Constitutional scholar, let us hope that he will take advantage of the closing days of the campaign to propose a revision to VAWA along the lines of the California Appellate Court ruling. Voters should be listening for such a proposed revision.

Such an action also would be in the spirit of the words of Presidential candidate Sen. Obama* that: “…we must fight to bring domestic violence out of the darkness of isolation and back into the light of justice…” On October 14, 2008 the California courts ruled that justice must serve and protect both men and women.

May it continue to hold that: “As goes California, so goes the Nation.”

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

__________________
The saying “As goes California, so goes the Nation,” never has been more true than for Domestic Violence Awareness... more

regjoeschmo
added this

2 responses

1 month ago

CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional

California attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.

The taxpayer lawsuit -- Woods. v. Shewry -- was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence.

In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women.

Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and held:

The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Marc E. Angelucci (pictured above left), said:

We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children.

Men pay at least half of the taxes that fund these programs and they should be entitled to services regardless of sex. I have seen the damage this does to men and kids and I will never stop fighting to end it, even if it means filing more lawsuits.

Numerous experts submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs and explaining that Domestic Violence against men is a serious but hidden problem. Children are being emotionally harmed as witnesses of the violence while their fathers are unable to get help.

Experts in the Case explained that although men report it less than women, empirical survey data consistently shows women are at least as violent as men in relationships, and that men suffer one-third of injuries.

Much more in the linkCalifornia attorney Marc Angelucci scored a tremendous victory today as the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled... more

regjoeschmo
added this

12 responses

1 month ago

Dads of Michigan speaks to the public.........

This is why there is change happening in Michigan. We need to be active in politics and get out there to get our voices heard!!

regjoeschmo
added this

0 responses

1 month ago

Alec Baldwin's A Promise to Ourselves Captures the Brutality of Divorce Wars

Alec Baldwin is one of the walking wounded, a casualty of the divorce/custody wars. Written out of his pain, looking from the inside looking out, viewing events through the prism of that pain with all of a victim's perceptions and acuity. Although sometimes -- perhaps often -- skewed, or inaccurate, his story told with intelligence, passion and understandably, anger, and acknowledgment of the mistakes he made, it is all the more instructive and revealing to anyone about to embark on a similar journey and gives a foretaste of the emotional rollercoaster they can expect. It is not a journey for the faint of heart.

His description of his wife's lawyer as being "avaricious, inhumane, a garden slug of a divorce lawyer...I loathed [the lawyer] -- he is none of the foregoing -- demonstrates the damage the process can do to an otherwise sensitive and reasonable person.

He exposes to daylight the underbelly of the American system of divorce and the cottage industries that the system has created -- forensic accountants, appraisers, custody evaluators, psychologist, psychiatrists, law guardians and mediators -- and, of course lawyers, all feeding off the carcass of people getting divorced.

Baldwin takes the reader on a whirlwind tour across the landscape of divorce and born of his heartache, makes interesting suggestions to improve the system, to anyone about to get on that bus.

There are many things wrong with the system. It is perhaps, the worst possible -- except for all others. He makes it clear that, at the very least, as far as custody is concerned, the system does not work. The law simply does not deal well -- nor was ever intended -- to deal with matters of the heart -- particularly the heart in conflict with itself.

One thing, according to the public's perception he may well have got right, '...most lawyers [are] are men and women who were not sufficiently smart enough to become doctors or engineers.'

This book is a must and quick read for anybody thinking of a divorce, but they better keep a bottle of Jack Daniels near by. They will need it."

Alec Baldwin is one of the walking wounded, a casualty of the divorce/custody wars. Written out of his pain, looking from the... more