Child Custody Battle - Family mediation project seeks to reduce child custody disputes
Associated Press
Family mediation project seeks to reduce child custody disputes.
Bismarck, N.D. (AP) Two North Dakota judicial districts are part of a family mediation project aimed at helping resolve child custody cases.
The project is being tried in the Northeast Central Judicial District, including Grand Forks and Nelson counties, and in the South Central Judicial District, which includes 12 counties surrounding Bismarck-Mandan.
Officials say five cases have been completed so far and mediation resolved all the issues in four of the five cases.
State Court Administrator Sally Holewa (hoh-LEH'-vah) says one of the goals in mediation is to teach parents how to resolve future disputes.
One skeptic is Mitchell Sanderson of Park River, an activist for fathers' custody. He says couples already have the option of mediation.
Holewa says that option has not been widely used.
Court officials will report to the next Legislature on whether the mediation program shows enough promise to be extended statewide.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Child Custody for Fathers - Sperm Donor Fights for His Rights as a Father in U.S. Supreme Court
Child Custody for Fathers - Sperm Donor Fights for His Rights as a Father in U.S. Supreme Court
CHICAGO, July 7 /PRNewswire/
Both the Alliance Defense Fund & Keys for Networking, Inc. filed Amicus Briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of attorney Jeffery M. Leving's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Leving filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Daryl Hendrix, a Topeka sperm donor, to protect Daryl's constitutional rights to
parent his twin children.
Mr. Hendrix donated his genetic material to attorney Samantha
Harrington, who conceived their twins who are now three years-old. The case
explores vast uncharted territory in the law where there have been
inconsistent rulings on the rights and obligations of sperm donors from one
court to another in this nation. "This case will have significant
ramifications on the future of fathers' rights and reproductive technology.
When we reach a point in society when a father has been reduced to nothing
more than a genetic vending machine, then we have reached a point of
hopelessness for our children. We should be encouraging fathers to be
constant figures in their children's lives instead of legally baring their
fundamental human right to parent," states Leving, "we must not forget that
any man's loss of his children diminishes mankind," he added.
Mr. Hendrix initially petitioned the Shawnee County District Court in
Kansas to afford him parental rights and provide for his son and daughter
financially. Ms. Harrington countered by filing a paternity action. Mr.
Hendrix testified that he and the mother, Ms. Harrington, had an oral
agreement to co-parent their children together. Both of those cases were
dismissed by a district court judge, prompting Hendrix to appeal the
decision in the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court decided,
4-2, that a sperm donor must have a written agreement with the mother in
order to exercise any parental rights. That decision annihilated Daryl's
inherent rights as a father and treads dangerously on redefining
fatherhood.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, attorneys for Hendrix appealed to the United
States Supreme Court, asking for the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court to
be overturned. This appeal will clearly be a landmark case that will
determine the future of reproductive technology, alternative child
conception, and advancement of fathers' rights. "Mr. Hendrix's case
deserves to be heard in our nation's highest court and their decision can
guide the future of reproductive technology. We want to make sure that Mr.
Hendrix's children know that they have a father who loves them, who will
support them emotionally and financially. We want the children to know that
they have a father who will spend time with them and help to raise them and
that they did not just spring out of a test tube," states Andrey
Filipowicz, co-counsel with Jeffery M. Leving.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled
that the verbal agreement between the sperm donor and the mother was "valid
on its face" and that 'Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a
child -- a third party -- who has an independent "right" to support from
each one of them.' The Court ordered the sperm donor to pay over $1500 a
month in child support, even though he was not named as the father on the
birth certificate of the children. A British Court had a similar finding in
the case of a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Attorney Jeffery M. Leving states, "The legal system has not kept
current with science and reproduction technology and its effects on the
changing American family. The U.S. Supreme court now has the opportunity to
correct this flaw in our judicial system and protect an important
relationship between a loving father and his children." Leving is a
nationally renowned litigator, advocate or fathers' rights and founder of
dadsrights.com.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
CHICAGO, July 7 /PRNewswire/
Both the Alliance Defense Fund & Keys for Networking, Inc. filed Amicus Briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of attorney Jeffery M. Leving's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Leving filed the Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Daryl Hendrix, a Topeka sperm donor, to protect Daryl's constitutional rights to
parent his twin children.
Mr. Hendrix donated his genetic material to attorney Samantha
Harrington, who conceived their twins who are now three years-old. The case
explores vast uncharted territory in the law where there have been
inconsistent rulings on the rights and obligations of sperm donors from one
court to another in this nation. "This case will have significant
ramifications on the future of fathers' rights and reproductive technology.
When we reach a point in society when a father has been reduced to nothing
more than a genetic vending machine, then we have reached a point of
hopelessness for our children. We should be encouraging fathers to be
constant figures in their children's lives instead of legally baring their
fundamental human right to parent," states Leving, "we must not forget that
any man's loss of his children diminishes mankind," he added.
Mr. Hendrix initially petitioned the Shawnee County District Court in
Kansas to afford him parental rights and provide for his son and daughter
financially. Ms. Harrington countered by filing a paternity action. Mr.
Hendrix testified that he and the mother, Ms. Harrington, had an oral
agreement to co-parent their children together. Both of those cases were
dismissed by a district court judge, prompting Hendrix to appeal the
decision in the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court decided,
4-2, that a sperm donor must have a written agreement with the mother in
order to exercise any parental rights. That decision annihilated Daryl's
inherent rights as a father and treads dangerously on redefining
fatherhood.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, attorneys for Hendrix appealed to the United
States Supreme Court, asking for the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court to
be overturned. This appeal will clearly be a landmark case that will
determine the future of reproductive technology, alternative child
conception, and advancement of fathers' rights. "Mr. Hendrix's case
deserves to be heard in our nation's highest court and their decision can
guide the future of reproductive technology. We want to make sure that Mr.
Hendrix's children know that they have a father who loves them, who will
support them emotionally and financially. We want the children to know that
they have a father who will spend time with them and help to raise them and
that they did not just spring out of a test tube," states Andrey
Filipowicz, co-counsel with Jeffery M. Leving.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled
that the verbal agreement between the sperm donor and the mother was "valid
on its face" and that 'Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a
child -- a third party -- who has an independent "right" to support from
each one of them.' The Court ordered the sperm donor to pay over $1500 a
month in child support, even though he was not named as the father on the
birth certificate of the children. A British Court had a similar finding in
the case of a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple.
Attorney Jeffery M. Leving states, "The legal system has not kept
current with science and reproduction technology and its effects on the
changing American family. The U.S. Supreme court now has the opportunity to
correct this flaw in our judicial system and protect an important
relationship between a loving father and his children." Leving is a
nationally renowned litigator, advocate or fathers' rights and founder of
dadsrights.com.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Child Custody for Fathers - Teaching fathers the Role of Men
Child Custody for Fathers - Teaching fathers the Role of Men
By Greg Mellen, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/04/2008 11:12:38 PM PDT
Alphonse Mitchell, 51, was a drug user with legal problems when he entered the Role of Men Academy. The program helped him turn his life around, and today he is helping raise his granddaughter Nyar Haley, 9.
LONG BEACH - As Demoris Mosley talks about becoming a better father, his sons, Donovan, 9, and Dominic, 7, crawl around on the floor watching a spider spinning a web in a corner of the room.
Mosley tells them several times to get up and let the spider be. Eventually he surrenders and lets them act in the way of all 8 and 9-year-old boys.
Mosley is able to spend this time with his boys on a weekday afternoon in part because of his involvement with the Role of Men Academy.
He learned the patience and civility he needed in negotiating with his ex-wife for visitation with the boys, even after she moved with them to Fresno.
Eight years ago, Don Evans had his youngest daughter taken away from him by the
Don Evans attended Role of Men Academy to learn how to better care for his daughters Destiny, left, and Dana, who was born four months premature. I learned that what other people may think is impossible is possible, Evans said. It was believed the single father couldn't care for the prematurely born child who required extensive medical help.
Through his involvement with Role of Men, Evans won back child custody of the child and he and the two girls are thriving.
When Alphonse Mitchell was introduced to Role of Men, he was only interested in the $20 gift card from Target that he could receive by attending several classes.
The group's advocacy on his behalf helped keep him out of prison and now the grandfather is learning to be a positive role model for the granddaughter who now lives with him.
From all walks and life circumstances, fathers in Long Beach have been coming to Role of Men since 1995.
The Long Beach program helps fathers become not only more responsible and active parents, but more responsible and active citizens and members of their community.
Some Role of Men graduates, like Evans, are successful professionals. Others, like Mitchell or Richard Winfrey, have struggled with drugs and the law. Some, like Mosley, were going through failing relationships. But almost all share one trait - they lacked a strong solid father figure. Those who enter Role of Men seek to become that kind of father figure in their attempts to break a vicious cycle.
Not all who enter graduate and not all graduates succeed, but many do and are now leading the kinds of productive lives that provide hope for the Central Area neighborhood in Long Beach, roughly bordered by Seventh Street to the south, Willow Street to the north, Pacific Avenue to the west and Atlantic Avenue to the east.
Since it was created more than 13 years ago, Role of Men has graduated more than 1,000 and provided services to more than 3,000. Those who finish the program are provided with intensive case management.
According to project director David Hillman Jr., the results are encouraging enough that Role of Men is being considered as a model for other programs and is working on training manuals and literature.
Role of Men conducts its business at the Central Facilities offices next to Martin Luther King Jr. Park. It operates under grant funding from a variety of sources and is under the umbrella of the city's Department of Health and Human Services.
The program operates on a budget of about $450,000 and Hillman says he'd like to see the program become "institutionalized" in the city to guarantee somewhat stable funding.
Hillman Jr. grew up around the block. His father, David Hillman Sr., was the owner-operator of the drive-in dairy on what is now Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. And Hillman credits the guidance and love of his father with helping him go to college and succeed. Now he's trying to provide some of the guidance and chances many of his contemporaries never had.
In the office of the Rev. Larry Ginn, Role of Men's case manager, there is a picture of a black man holding an infant to his chest. Several posters proclaim "Family Life!!!"
"We're trying to include the father in the family equation," Hillman says.
He notes that aid programs for single-parent families, even in their names, seem to exclude fathers. He points out state's MCAH, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health, and the federal WIC program, Women, Infants and Children, as prime examples.
For Hillman, getting dads in the picture is what it's all about.
Role of Men was begun in an effort to combat the high infant mortality among African-American children in Long Beach, but it has become more, much more than that.
Breaking the cycle Importance of fathers
Numerous studies show the importance of intact families, or at least functional units with dual parental involvement, in children's success. And just as many studies show how difficult it can be without that support.
The numbers are chilling. According to census data, nationally 65 percent of African-American children live in single-family homes, the overwhelming majority of whom are women.
According to Census data, in Long Beach 64 percent of African-American women between 15 and 50 who gave birth in 2005 were unmarried, versus 38 percent for the population overall.
Social scientists link a marketplace of risks for children from single-parent homes from low educational attainment to higher likelihood of gang participation, commission of violent crimes and double the likelihood of going to jail, according to the Children's Health Encyclopedia.
Role of Men attempts to take a holistic approach in its dealings with men under the belief that mental health and social services, education and employment are all part of the package needed for success.
Hillman says his is not a gang prevention program, yet rival gang members will sit side by side in classes and interact. Role of Men is not an employment program, but graduates often find stable, good-paying jobs. It's not an education program but graduates go on to higher education.
The program also addresses anger management, drug use, legal custody and a host of other issues designed to help men make better decisions and live better lives.
The program also includes outreach, to find men in need of help, and case management to refer the men to places and programs where they can receive additional help.
"We don't mandate. We just provide the most accurate information so they can make the most wise decisions," Hillman says.
Most important, Hillman said the program works.
"I've seen programs come and go and lives not changed," says Hillman of other programs he calls "poverty pimps."
Certainly the lives of guys like Evans, Mitchell, Winfrey and Mosley have changed.
"Most of the men I met have turned into a positive," Winfrey says. "We're the fathers of the 'hood and that's an honor in itself."
Don Evans
On a summer day as Dana, 8, and Destiny Evans, 9, play at Reservoir Park, it's hard to imagine how close they came to being split apart.
When Dana was born about 4 months prematurely, she weighed barely a pound and fit into the palm of her father's hand. Chances of her survival were grim, but she hung on.
When she was healthy enough to go home, she still required a regimen of medications, intravenous drips, shots and heart and breathing monitors.
When Don Evans arrived at the hospital to take Dana home, his girl was gone. She had been removed because officials thought the single father couldn't handle the demands.
The daughter's mother suffered from sickle cell disease and could not care for the child, and had agreed to let Evans have custody.
After calling an attorney to begin a legal battle to reclaim his child and maintain custody of his 1-year-old, whom DCFS wanted to remove from the home, Evans joined Role of Men.
The easiest thing in the world would have been to act out in frustration or anger or simply feel overwhelmed and give up.
But Evans' new family, Role of Men, wouldn't let him.
"I learned that was other people may think is impossible is possible," Evans says.
With the help of Role of Men, Evans developed a parenting plan that he could present to the courts.
He learned how to operate the heart and breathing monitors his daughter required, learned infant CPR and how to administer medications and even the IV drips.
When Evans appeared in court, the whole staff from Role of Men accompanied him and advocated on his behalf.
It wasn't easy. Evans spent $19,000 and lost his house fighting for custody.
Today, he and his daughters share a modest apartment in Long Beach. But they're together and Evans wouldn't want it any other way.
Alphonse Mitchell
When he joined the program, Alphonse Mitchell, now 51, didn't really fit the demographic. His children were grown and he felt different from the other younger men.
So he sat in the back of the class, didn't talk much and waited for the gift card that had been his inducement to attend.
Mitchell considered dropping out. He had copped to a drug possession charge and with his arrest record it looked like he would do four years in state prison.
One day Mitchell said he was sitting at home drinking a "40" when his Role of Men case worker called.
Maybe it was the booze, the loneliness or the fear. Maybe it was the thought of not seeing his young granddaughter for years. Whatever the reason, Mitchell let down his defenses and began talking and sharing with his classmates and staffers.
Mitchell was referred to a drug program and when it came time for sentencing, a number of Role of Men representatives appeared to speak on Mitchell's behalf.
"I remember the judge said `You have some powerful people on your team,"' Mitchell recalled. "Then he suspended my sentence."
Mitchell had to undergo house arrest and wear a court-ordered ankle bracelet, but he had a second chance, he says, "to give back."
Like many of his compatriots, Mitchell grew up without a father figure to teach him what it meant to be a parent.
Mitchell had a good-paying job with the city and thought providing made him a good father.
"I paid the bills, but I was just paying lip service to being a father," Mitchell says.
These days, Mitchell accompanies his granddaughter on two buses each day to school. He hopes to give her some of the guidance he failed to give to his own children.
"If I had taught (my kids) life skills, maybe they'd be strong enough that I could send (my granddaughter,)" Mitchell says.
Richard Winfrey
For Winfrey, being a part of Role of Men has helped him control the rage that arises.
"I'm here to tell you I've learned a lot," Winfrey says. "(Learning) anger management had helped me be a better father."
Winfrey has had issues with violence, gang affiliation and crime through the years, including spousal abuse.
His ex-wife has moved to Lancaster with his three kids, Delvin, 14, Raven, 12, and Angelica, 11, but Winfrey says he stays involved with their lives.
Winfrey says he has learned that there is more to being a parent than just a title.
"Anyone can say they're a moms or pops or whatever," Winfrey said, proving and showing it is something else.
Winfrey didn't meet his father until he was 22 and described it as an awkward exchange.
"I said `What can I call you. I don't even know you. It's hard for me to feel you,"' Winfrey recalls.
Winfrey says he strives not to fall into that trap.
"I tell my son every day what I went through, `I refuse to let you go through the same thing,"' Winfrey says.
Demoris Mosley
The breakup with his wife was getting ugly and Demoris Mosley wasn't handling it well.
Although Mosley was good at helping other people with their problems as a rehab and drug counselor, his own life was a mess. And it was affecting the kids.
Role of Men helped Mosley become centered and to hear the kinds of things he told clients.
"It reaffirmed and reassured me that there were things more important than myself," Mosley says.
And those were his boys, Donovan and Dominic.
Mosley has custody of the boys on alternate weekends and through part of the summer.
Several times he has traveled to see the boys in school in Fresno, where the boys reside with their mom.
While there, he says he was able to change perceptions school officials had about him after talking to the mother.
"If not for the (Role of Men) classes I would have been up there all, `arrgh!"' Mosley said. "But I dealt with it in an adult manner. I'm learning how to be responsible and not so emotional."
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
By Greg Mellen, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/04/2008 11:12:38 PM PDT
Alphonse Mitchell, 51, was a drug user with legal problems when he entered the Role of Men Academy. The program helped him turn his life around, and today he is helping raise his granddaughter Nyar Haley, 9.
LONG BEACH - As Demoris Mosley talks about becoming a better father, his sons, Donovan, 9, and Dominic, 7, crawl around on the floor watching a spider spinning a web in a corner of the room.
Mosley tells them several times to get up and let the spider be. Eventually he surrenders and lets them act in the way of all 8 and 9-year-old boys.
Mosley is able to spend this time with his boys on a weekday afternoon in part because of his involvement with the Role of Men Academy.
He learned the patience and civility he needed in negotiating with his ex-wife for visitation with the boys, even after she moved with them to Fresno.
Eight years ago, Don Evans had his youngest daughter taken away from him by the
Don Evans attended Role of Men Academy to learn how to better care for his daughters Destiny, left, and Dana, who was born four months premature. I learned that what other people may think is impossible is possible, Evans said. It was believed the single father couldn't care for the prematurely born child who required extensive medical help.
Through his involvement with Role of Men, Evans won back child custody of the child and he and the two girls are thriving.
When Alphonse Mitchell was introduced to Role of Men, he was only interested in the $20 gift card from Target that he could receive by attending several classes.
The group's advocacy on his behalf helped keep him out of prison and now the grandfather is learning to be a positive role model for the granddaughter who now lives with him.
From all walks and life circumstances, fathers in Long Beach have been coming to Role of Men since 1995.
The Long Beach program helps fathers become not only more responsible and active parents, but more responsible and active citizens and members of their community.
Some Role of Men graduates, like Evans, are successful professionals. Others, like Mitchell or Richard Winfrey, have struggled with drugs and the law. Some, like Mosley, were going through failing relationships. But almost all share one trait - they lacked a strong solid father figure. Those who enter Role of Men seek to become that kind of father figure in their attempts to break a vicious cycle.
Not all who enter graduate and not all graduates succeed, but many do and are now leading the kinds of productive lives that provide hope for the Central Area neighborhood in Long Beach, roughly bordered by Seventh Street to the south, Willow Street to the north, Pacific Avenue to the west and Atlantic Avenue to the east.
Since it was created more than 13 years ago, Role of Men has graduated more than 1,000 and provided services to more than 3,000. Those who finish the program are provided with intensive case management.
According to project director David Hillman Jr., the results are encouraging enough that Role of Men is being considered as a model for other programs and is working on training manuals and literature.
Role of Men conducts its business at the Central Facilities offices next to Martin Luther King Jr. Park. It operates under grant funding from a variety of sources and is under the umbrella of the city's Department of Health and Human Services.
The program operates on a budget of about $450,000 and Hillman says he'd like to see the program become "institutionalized" in the city to guarantee somewhat stable funding.
Hillman Jr. grew up around the block. His father, David Hillman Sr., was the owner-operator of the drive-in dairy on what is now Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. And Hillman credits the guidance and love of his father with helping him go to college and succeed. Now he's trying to provide some of the guidance and chances many of his contemporaries never had.
In the office of the Rev. Larry Ginn, Role of Men's case manager, there is a picture of a black man holding an infant to his chest. Several posters proclaim "Family Life!!!"
"We're trying to include the father in the family equation," Hillman says.
He notes that aid programs for single-parent families, even in their names, seem to exclude fathers. He points out state's MCAH, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health, and the federal WIC program, Women, Infants and Children, as prime examples.
For Hillman, getting dads in the picture is what it's all about.
Role of Men was begun in an effort to combat the high infant mortality among African-American children in Long Beach, but it has become more, much more than that.
Breaking the cycle Importance of fathers
Numerous studies show the importance of intact families, or at least functional units with dual parental involvement, in children's success. And just as many studies show how difficult it can be without that support.
The numbers are chilling. According to census data, nationally 65 percent of African-American children live in single-family homes, the overwhelming majority of whom are women.
According to Census data, in Long Beach 64 percent of African-American women between 15 and 50 who gave birth in 2005 were unmarried, versus 38 percent for the population overall.
Social scientists link a marketplace of risks for children from single-parent homes from low educational attainment to higher likelihood of gang participation, commission of violent crimes and double the likelihood of going to jail, according to the Children's Health Encyclopedia.
Role of Men attempts to take a holistic approach in its dealings with men under the belief that mental health and social services, education and employment are all part of the package needed for success.
Hillman says his is not a gang prevention program, yet rival gang members will sit side by side in classes and interact. Role of Men is not an employment program, but graduates often find stable, good-paying jobs. It's not an education program but graduates go on to higher education.
The program also addresses anger management, drug use, legal custody and a host of other issues designed to help men make better decisions and live better lives.
The program also includes outreach, to find men in need of help, and case management to refer the men to places and programs where they can receive additional help.
"We don't mandate. We just provide the most accurate information so they can make the most wise decisions," Hillman says.
Most important, Hillman said the program works.
"I've seen programs come and go and lives not changed," says Hillman of other programs he calls "poverty pimps."
Certainly the lives of guys like Evans, Mitchell, Winfrey and Mosley have changed.
"Most of the men I met have turned into a positive," Winfrey says. "We're the fathers of the 'hood and that's an honor in itself."
Don Evans
On a summer day as Dana, 8, and Destiny Evans, 9, play at Reservoir Park, it's hard to imagine how close they came to being split apart.
When Dana was born about 4 months prematurely, she weighed barely a pound and fit into the palm of her father's hand. Chances of her survival were grim, but she hung on.
When she was healthy enough to go home, she still required a regimen of medications, intravenous drips, shots and heart and breathing monitors.
When Don Evans arrived at the hospital to take Dana home, his girl was gone. She had been removed because officials thought the single father couldn't handle the demands.
The daughter's mother suffered from sickle cell disease and could not care for the child, and had agreed to let Evans have custody.
After calling an attorney to begin a legal battle to reclaim his child and maintain custody of his 1-year-old, whom DCFS wanted to remove from the home, Evans joined Role of Men.
The easiest thing in the world would have been to act out in frustration or anger or simply feel overwhelmed and give up.
But Evans' new family, Role of Men, wouldn't let him.
"I learned that was other people may think is impossible is possible," Evans says.
With the help of Role of Men, Evans developed a parenting plan that he could present to the courts.
He learned how to operate the heart and breathing monitors his daughter required, learned infant CPR and how to administer medications and even the IV drips.
When Evans appeared in court, the whole staff from Role of Men accompanied him and advocated on his behalf.
It wasn't easy. Evans spent $19,000 and lost his house fighting for custody.
Today, he and his daughters share a modest apartment in Long Beach. But they're together and Evans wouldn't want it any other way.
Alphonse Mitchell
When he joined the program, Alphonse Mitchell, now 51, didn't really fit the demographic. His children were grown and he felt different from the other younger men.
So he sat in the back of the class, didn't talk much and waited for the gift card that had been his inducement to attend.
Mitchell considered dropping out. He had copped to a drug possession charge and with his arrest record it looked like he would do four years in state prison.
One day Mitchell said he was sitting at home drinking a "40" when his Role of Men case worker called.
Maybe it was the booze, the loneliness or the fear. Maybe it was the thought of not seeing his young granddaughter for years. Whatever the reason, Mitchell let down his defenses and began talking and sharing with his classmates and staffers.
Mitchell was referred to a drug program and when it came time for sentencing, a number of Role of Men representatives appeared to speak on Mitchell's behalf.
"I remember the judge said `You have some powerful people on your team,"' Mitchell recalled. "Then he suspended my sentence."
Mitchell had to undergo house arrest and wear a court-ordered ankle bracelet, but he had a second chance, he says, "to give back."
Like many of his compatriots, Mitchell grew up without a father figure to teach him what it meant to be a parent.
Mitchell had a good-paying job with the city and thought providing made him a good father.
"I paid the bills, but I was just paying lip service to being a father," Mitchell says.
These days, Mitchell accompanies his granddaughter on two buses each day to school. He hopes to give her some of the guidance he failed to give to his own children.
"If I had taught (my kids) life skills, maybe they'd be strong enough that I could send (my granddaughter,)" Mitchell says.
Richard Winfrey
For Winfrey, being a part of Role of Men has helped him control the rage that arises.
"I'm here to tell you I've learned a lot," Winfrey says. "(Learning) anger management had helped me be a better father."
Winfrey has had issues with violence, gang affiliation and crime through the years, including spousal abuse.
His ex-wife has moved to Lancaster with his three kids, Delvin, 14, Raven, 12, and Angelica, 11, but Winfrey says he stays involved with their lives.
Winfrey says he has learned that there is more to being a parent than just a title.
"Anyone can say they're a moms or pops or whatever," Winfrey said, proving and showing it is something else.
Winfrey didn't meet his father until he was 22 and described it as an awkward exchange.
"I said `What can I call you. I don't even know you. It's hard for me to feel you,"' Winfrey recalls.
Winfrey says he strives not to fall into that trap.
"I tell my son every day what I went through, `I refuse to let you go through the same thing,"' Winfrey says.
Demoris Mosley
The breakup with his wife was getting ugly and Demoris Mosley wasn't handling it well.
Although Mosley was good at helping other people with their problems as a rehab and drug counselor, his own life was a mess. And it was affecting the kids.
Role of Men helped Mosley become centered and to hear the kinds of things he told clients.
"It reaffirmed and reassured me that there were things more important than myself," Mosley says.
And those were his boys, Donovan and Dominic.
Mosley has custody of the boys on alternate weekends and through part of the summer.
Several times he has traveled to see the boys in school in Fresno, where the boys reside with their mom.
While there, he says he was able to change perceptions school officials had about him after talking to the mother.
"If not for the (Role of Men) classes I would have been up there all, `arrgh!"' Mosley said. "But I dealt with it in an adult manner. I'm learning how to be responsible and not so emotional."
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Child Custody Battle - Family justice: the secret state that steals our children
Child Custody Battle - Family justice: the secret state that steals our children
Every year thousands of children are taken from their parents, largely on the say-so of ‘experts'. It is a secret and sometimes unjust process and the system must change
Two weeks ago I got a phone call from a woman I hadn't seen for four years. She was calling to tell me that she was moving abroad, unable to bear the pain of living in the same country as the daughter she is no longer allowed to see. “I wanted to thank you,” she said, “for being the only person who ever gave me a fair hearing.” I was seized with guilt. This woman had asked for my help, and I had utterly failed her. Her story had been just so incredible. She described a world where courts need no criminal conviction to remove your child, only the word of a psychiatrist or doctor, and can deny you the chance to call any expert in your defence. A world that uses the “welfare of the child” to gag you from discussing your case. Where even if you prove yourself innocent on appeal, your children may already have been adopted: in which case you will never be allowed to contact them again. A world which had treated her so badly, this rather pretty and utterly normal young woman, that she was sincerely thanking me just for listening.
It had taken three calls from this lady and her boyfriend, a clean-cut army bloke, before I had agreed to go down to their provincial semi. We sat in their front room with the curtains drawn while they got out box after box of papers. And I got my first inkling of what it is like to go through the door into the secret state.
This particular case had started, as many do, with a child custody battle. The mother had started to worry about her ex-partner's behaviour during his visits to their daughter. She approached social services to ask if they could supervise his visits. When the child then told a teacher that her father had touched her in bad places, the police were called. They filmed the child repeating the allegations. The upshot? A psychologist who watched the film but never met the mother, father or daughter wrote a report alleging that the mother had coached the daughter to lie. He never appeared in court, and was never crossexamined. Yet the court, encouraged by social workers, accepted his view. The judge ordered that the daughter should go to live with her father - a man the mother was convinced was an abuser.
My bitter regret, now, is that I did so little about that case. At the time I couldn't help wondering if there was not more to it than the mother had let on. And there may well have been. But today, I'm not so sure. Because so many elements of her story fit patterns that I have since heard again and again. The reliance on experts who have never met the accused. The stormtrooper behaviour of some social workers. The legal aid solicitors acting for parents who are always in a rush. This mother was plunged into a world of acronyms and organisations that she knew nothing about. She was always on the back foot. Having been the person who reached for help from the system, she became its victim.
The tale niggled away at me. I started asking questions. Soon after this encounter I met Denise and Nigel Clarkson, who had lost both their daughters after one sustained an unexplained injury, and who fought like tigers to get them back. Through the Eaton Foundation, which they founded, I met American doctors and radiologists who were challenging many of the assumptions made by British doctors who were diagnosing abuse from so-called “shaken baby syndrome” and certain tiny bone fractures.
I began to write about cases where judges were speaking out publicly about the failings of social services. In early 2006, Mr Justice Ryder denounced Oldham Council for taking a baby away from his parents because of a doctor who “strayed from the role of expert into the role of decision-maker” and a family court judge who “failed to detect that that was what had happened”. Two courts refused to let the parents seek a second medical opinion. It was a year, the most formative year of that child's life, before the Court of Appeal allowed them to call a neurologist who proved that the injury was caused before birth. We know of that blunder only because the judge involved chose to make his judgment public. Few judges do.
The stories began to pour in. People left messages on my answering machine saying that the system was rotten but that they dared not speak out, because they had managed to get their children back. Some had taken a sick child to hospital, only to be accused of physical abuse. Some had been accused of “emotional abuse”, a category that has no definition in British law but which has jumped 50 per cent in the past tenyears as a reason for taking children into care. Quite a number had complained about their local authority, for letting them down over special-needs education, for example, only to find themselves in turn accused of neglect. One woman in Sheffield sobbed that her two autistic sons had been robbed of their mother, as well as the care they needed, because she was accused of making up their symptoms.
Some parents complained about social workers and hospitals refusing to give them copies of any papers or X-rays in their cases, which they needed to mount appeals. Every single one felt that the system was set against them before they could even assemble a defence. Some had real problems: violent ex-partners or unreliable new ones, low IQ, brushes with drugs in the past. Many had never been known to social services or the police before. All were desperate to be given the chance to prove that they were good parents, some begging the local authority to install CCTV cameras in their homes.
Many alleged that their children were treated far worse in care: unloved, not allowed to do homework, some with a new bruise almost every time they came for supervised contact, bruises that were never explained.
Since local authorities generally would not talk to me, citing confidentiality, I still had only part of the picture. Was there really a problem, or were these people all lying? I looked for figures. Were particular local authorities taking above-average numbers of children into care, for example? How many of these proceedings were contested? How many mothers were being accused of having Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a psychiatric disorder that is supposed to be rare but seemed to be cropping up too often in my conversations? I would call the Home Office, which would refer me to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which would refer me to the various incarnations of the Education Department, which would usually refer me back to the Home Office. Many of my questions were met with the answer that the data was “not held centrally”. This whole area started to look more and more like a hole inside government that ministers were simply not interested in.
Telling the stories was fiendishly difficult. First there was the legal requirement to avoid publishing anything that might even indirectly lead to the identification of the child involved. This is understandable, but it means that what journalists can write is sometimes so thin, so patchy that it is hard to ask anyone to believe us - because the most pertinent facts are often very distinctive. It also means that we can never humanise stories with photos, of the kind that helped to secure the freedom of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark. This is despite the fact that children can be pictured and named in adoption magazines, even while their frantic parents are trying to mount an appeal to get them back. Secondly, there were often additional reporting restrictions. Some of these were sought by local authorities as soon as I called them to try to get their sides of the stories. Some of these orders were so badly drafted that our lawyers simply could not tell what we could say. Some bore no relation to the draft that we had been sent before the hearing. It costs money to fight such orders, money that local media may not have and nationals are reluctant to commit.
The more often my articles were spiked or denuded of interesting detail, the more incensed I became. I began to feel that we, the liberal press, were part of a conspiracy of silence against people who had no voice. Worse, their children had no voice.
Some of these children were being told that they were in care because their parents no longer wanted them. As soon as a care order is made, the local authority controls all communications between parents and children. In many cases contact is gradually reduced, sometimes from a few hours a week to an hour or so a month, at which point social workers can return to court and claim that the child no longer has a strong bond with his family. Such tactics are unbearable. Clearly there must be some protection for authorities that work in extremely tough territory. Social workers are lambasted as often for failing to protect children from danger as for misjudging the innocent.
The problem is when laws that are meant to protect professionals from malicious allegations become an armoury against truth. There are good reasons why it is illegal to name a child involved in family court proceedings. Family law cases are fraught enough, without publicity adding to children's suffering. But it is quite wrong that laws framed to protect child privacy are being used to protect the professionals. Two years ago, when the children taken into care by Rochdale Council in the fabricated “satanic abuse” scandal left care and publicly attacked the council for removing them, the council argued that it would be wrong to name the social workers because that would breach the children's privacy - even though the children were desperate to speak out the minute they were free.
It does not have to be like this. The media cannot name the victim in rape cases. But we do report the evidence. Family courts, which operate in camera, have a lower standard of proof than criminal courts. They “convict” on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. A lower threshold is thought acceptable because civil courts cannot send people to jail. But to lose your children, and for them to lose you, because a court finds that abuse is a “probability”, is a life sentence of another kind. This makes it even more vital that the system is accountable. Yet I cannot think of another area of public life that operates with so little scrutiny.
The main piece of legislation governing child protection is the 1989 Children Act. The Act was passed in the wake of the Cleveland scandal, in which allegations of sexual abuse by two consultant paediatricians at one hospital led to 121 children being removed from their homes. The Act clearly states that there should be “minimum intervention in family life” and that a court order should be made only if “it can be shown that this is better for the child than not making an order”.
Yet some parts of the country seem to have strayed a long way from that. This year, the education watchdog Ofsted became the regulator for Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service that provides guardians ad litem for children in care cases. Ofsted's first two reports so far have been devastating. “Inspectors could not find evidence,” Ofsted says, “about how service managers satisfy themselves that family court advisers are reaching sound conclusions in order to make the right recommendations to courts about children's lives”. It found that “most reports contain recommendations to the court that fail to take account of a key principle of the Children Act that there should be minimum state intervention in family life”. There is much more in similar vein. The hapless state of Cafcass is failing both children of innocent parents and children who are genuinely at risk.
Cafcass is one safeguard in the system that is manifestly failing. Another safeguard is that local authorities cannot remove children without a court order. But the manner in which these court orders are sought means that they are rarely refused (the Government has been unable to give me a single example of a refusal). Parents are not always informed that an order is even being sought, so are not able to defend themselves. Even if they are there, the momentum is unstoppable.
Bill Bache, the indefatigable solicitor who acted for Sally Clark, explained it to me this way. “Court proceedings are initiated within a day or two. The local authority knows the ropes. Most parents, including the brightest and most articulate, are often too distressed and shocked to think straight. They may well turn up unrepresented. The local authority makes its case, often in lurid terms, stressing that the children are in acute danger and they are requesting an immediate interim care order. There is no time sensibly to evaluate the evidence, therefore, no doubt wishing to be safe rather than sorry, the court grants the order. Suddenly the children are gone.”
It is impossible to describe the shock, the isolation, that parents feel once their child is gone. Even educated people who can afford a good lawyer struggle to think straight. They feel alone against the system. Judges rely on reports by experts, social workers and guardians, many of whom are used to working together. This can produce a fatal lack of objectivity. I have spoken to some exemplary social workers and judges in the past few years. It is not my intention to demonise them all. But we must be able to spot whether the same individuals are reaching erroneous conclusions over and over again. At the moment any expert, social worker or judge who makes mistakes, goes beyond their brief or is on a crusade against parents is virtually immune from scrutiny. They do not expect that their evidence or their judgments will ever be made public. Remember that Professor Roy Meadow was only uncovered because he gave misleading evidence in the criminal courts, which are open. If family courts remain closed we will never be able to feel sure that justice is being done.
Over the next few days I hope to paint a more detailed picture of the pieces of the secret state, offer some explanations as to why mistakes are made, and to outline some solutions. The Times' interest is more than theoretical: we will continue to challenge various injunctions in the courts. But we also need your help by asking you to write to your MP. We will not give up. Because to sever a child from its family without due cause is licensed state oppression of the worst kind. It is, in fact, child abuse.
Family justice - Why the Government must act
Privacy laws are designed to protect at-risk children. Yet these same laws are cited to prevent local authority childcare professionals, expert witnesses and guardians from being subjected to scrutiny for decisions that can tear families apart.
The system claims that the welfare of children is paramount. But the only way to make the welfare of children paramount is to make childcare professionals properly accountable for their decisions.
The press is allowed to report the workings of the criminal courts, even in rape cases, where victim identities are kept confidential. Yet it is denied access to the family courts that make decisions with far-reaching consequences. In 2005 the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee advised that more transparency was needed and that family courts should be opened to the press in all but exceptional circumstances.
The Government consulted on the proposals, recognising that public confidence was plummeting. But it lost its nerve. The Ministry for Justice has yet to publish the results of a second consultation, which ended last October.
Eight months later the Government cannot even say when it will respond to the consultation.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Every year thousands of children are taken from their parents, largely on the say-so of ‘experts'. It is a secret and sometimes unjust process and the system must change
Two weeks ago I got a phone call from a woman I hadn't seen for four years. She was calling to tell me that she was moving abroad, unable to bear the pain of living in the same country as the daughter she is no longer allowed to see. “I wanted to thank you,” she said, “for being the only person who ever gave me a fair hearing.” I was seized with guilt. This woman had asked for my help, and I had utterly failed her. Her story had been just so incredible. She described a world where courts need no criminal conviction to remove your child, only the word of a psychiatrist or doctor, and can deny you the chance to call any expert in your defence. A world that uses the “welfare of the child” to gag you from discussing your case. Where even if you prove yourself innocent on appeal, your children may already have been adopted: in which case you will never be allowed to contact them again. A world which had treated her so badly, this rather pretty and utterly normal young woman, that she was sincerely thanking me just for listening.
It had taken three calls from this lady and her boyfriend, a clean-cut army bloke, before I had agreed to go down to their provincial semi. We sat in their front room with the curtains drawn while they got out box after box of papers. And I got my first inkling of what it is like to go through the door into the secret state.
This particular case had started, as many do, with a child custody battle. The mother had started to worry about her ex-partner's behaviour during his visits to their daughter. She approached social services to ask if they could supervise his visits. When the child then told a teacher that her father had touched her in bad places, the police were called. They filmed the child repeating the allegations. The upshot? A psychologist who watched the film but never met the mother, father or daughter wrote a report alleging that the mother had coached the daughter to lie. He never appeared in court, and was never crossexamined. Yet the court, encouraged by social workers, accepted his view. The judge ordered that the daughter should go to live with her father - a man the mother was convinced was an abuser.
My bitter regret, now, is that I did so little about that case. At the time I couldn't help wondering if there was not more to it than the mother had let on. And there may well have been. But today, I'm not so sure. Because so many elements of her story fit patterns that I have since heard again and again. The reliance on experts who have never met the accused. The stormtrooper behaviour of some social workers. The legal aid solicitors acting for parents who are always in a rush. This mother was plunged into a world of acronyms and organisations that she knew nothing about. She was always on the back foot. Having been the person who reached for help from the system, she became its victim.
The tale niggled away at me. I started asking questions. Soon after this encounter I met Denise and Nigel Clarkson, who had lost both their daughters after one sustained an unexplained injury, and who fought like tigers to get them back. Through the Eaton Foundation, which they founded, I met American doctors and radiologists who were challenging many of the assumptions made by British doctors who were diagnosing abuse from so-called “shaken baby syndrome” and certain tiny bone fractures.
I began to write about cases where judges were speaking out publicly about the failings of social services. In early 2006, Mr Justice Ryder denounced Oldham Council for taking a baby away from his parents because of a doctor who “strayed from the role of expert into the role of decision-maker” and a family court judge who “failed to detect that that was what had happened”. Two courts refused to let the parents seek a second medical opinion. It was a year, the most formative year of that child's life, before the Court of Appeal allowed them to call a neurologist who proved that the injury was caused before birth. We know of that blunder only because the judge involved chose to make his judgment public. Few judges do.
The stories began to pour in. People left messages on my answering machine saying that the system was rotten but that they dared not speak out, because they had managed to get their children back. Some had taken a sick child to hospital, only to be accused of physical abuse. Some had been accused of “emotional abuse”, a category that has no definition in British law but which has jumped 50 per cent in the past tenyears as a reason for taking children into care. Quite a number had complained about their local authority, for letting them down over special-needs education, for example, only to find themselves in turn accused of neglect. One woman in Sheffield sobbed that her two autistic sons had been robbed of their mother, as well as the care they needed, because she was accused of making up their symptoms.
Some parents complained about social workers and hospitals refusing to give them copies of any papers or X-rays in their cases, which they needed to mount appeals. Every single one felt that the system was set against them before they could even assemble a defence. Some had real problems: violent ex-partners or unreliable new ones, low IQ, brushes with drugs in the past. Many had never been known to social services or the police before. All were desperate to be given the chance to prove that they were good parents, some begging the local authority to install CCTV cameras in their homes.
Many alleged that their children were treated far worse in care: unloved, not allowed to do homework, some with a new bruise almost every time they came for supervised contact, bruises that were never explained.
Since local authorities generally would not talk to me, citing confidentiality, I still had only part of the picture. Was there really a problem, or were these people all lying? I looked for figures. Were particular local authorities taking above-average numbers of children into care, for example? How many of these proceedings were contested? How many mothers were being accused of having Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a psychiatric disorder that is supposed to be rare but seemed to be cropping up too often in my conversations? I would call the Home Office, which would refer me to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which would refer me to the various incarnations of the Education Department, which would usually refer me back to the Home Office. Many of my questions were met with the answer that the data was “not held centrally”. This whole area started to look more and more like a hole inside government that ministers were simply not interested in.
Telling the stories was fiendishly difficult. First there was the legal requirement to avoid publishing anything that might even indirectly lead to the identification of the child involved. This is understandable, but it means that what journalists can write is sometimes so thin, so patchy that it is hard to ask anyone to believe us - because the most pertinent facts are often very distinctive. It also means that we can never humanise stories with photos, of the kind that helped to secure the freedom of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark. This is despite the fact that children can be pictured and named in adoption magazines, even while their frantic parents are trying to mount an appeal to get them back. Secondly, there were often additional reporting restrictions. Some of these were sought by local authorities as soon as I called them to try to get their sides of the stories. Some of these orders were so badly drafted that our lawyers simply could not tell what we could say. Some bore no relation to the draft that we had been sent before the hearing. It costs money to fight such orders, money that local media may not have and nationals are reluctant to commit.
The more often my articles were spiked or denuded of interesting detail, the more incensed I became. I began to feel that we, the liberal press, were part of a conspiracy of silence against people who had no voice. Worse, their children had no voice.
Some of these children were being told that they were in care because their parents no longer wanted them. As soon as a care order is made, the local authority controls all communications between parents and children. In many cases contact is gradually reduced, sometimes from a few hours a week to an hour or so a month, at which point social workers can return to court and claim that the child no longer has a strong bond with his family. Such tactics are unbearable. Clearly there must be some protection for authorities that work in extremely tough territory. Social workers are lambasted as often for failing to protect children from danger as for misjudging the innocent.
The problem is when laws that are meant to protect professionals from malicious allegations become an armoury against truth. There are good reasons why it is illegal to name a child involved in family court proceedings. Family law cases are fraught enough, without publicity adding to children's suffering. But it is quite wrong that laws framed to protect child privacy are being used to protect the professionals. Two years ago, when the children taken into care by Rochdale Council in the fabricated “satanic abuse” scandal left care and publicly attacked the council for removing them, the council argued that it would be wrong to name the social workers because that would breach the children's privacy - even though the children were desperate to speak out the minute they were free.
It does not have to be like this. The media cannot name the victim in rape cases. But we do report the evidence. Family courts, which operate in camera, have a lower standard of proof than criminal courts. They “convict” on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. A lower threshold is thought acceptable because civil courts cannot send people to jail. But to lose your children, and for them to lose you, because a court finds that abuse is a “probability”, is a life sentence of another kind. This makes it even more vital that the system is accountable. Yet I cannot think of another area of public life that operates with so little scrutiny.
The main piece of legislation governing child protection is the 1989 Children Act. The Act was passed in the wake of the Cleveland scandal, in which allegations of sexual abuse by two consultant paediatricians at one hospital led to 121 children being removed from their homes. The Act clearly states that there should be “minimum intervention in family life” and that a court order should be made only if “it can be shown that this is better for the child than not making an order”.
Yet some parts of the country seem to have strayed a long way from that. This year, the education watchdog Ofsted became the regulator for Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service that provides guardians ad litem for children in care cases. Ofsted's first two reports so far have been devastating. “Inspectors could not find evidence,” Ofsted says, “about how service managers satisfy themselves that family court advisers are reaching sound conclusions in order to make the right recommendations to courts about children's lives”. It found that “most reports contain recommendations to the court that fail to take account of a key principle of the Children Act that there should be minimum state intervention in family life”. There is much more in similar vein. The hapless state of Cafcass is failing both children of innocent parents and children who are genuinely at risk.
Cafcass is one safeguard in the system that is manifestly failing. Another safeguard is that local authorities cannot remove children without a court order. But the manner in which these court orders are sought means that they are rarely refused (the Government has been unable to give me a single example of a refusal). Parents are not always informed that an order is even being sought, so are not able to defend themselves. Even if they are there, the momentum is unstoppable.
Bill Bache, the indefatigable solicitor who acted for Sally Clark, explained it to me this way. “Court proceedings are initiated within a day or two. The local authority knows the ropes. Most parents, including the brightest and most articulate, are often too distressed and shocked to think straight. They may well turn up unrepresented. The local authority makes its case, often in lurid terms, stressing that the children are in acute danger and they are requesting an immediate interim care order. There is no time sensibly to evaluate the evidence, therefore, no doubt wishing to be safe rather than sorry, the court grants the order. Suddenly the children are gone.”
It is impossible to describe the shock, the isolation, that parents feel once their child is gone. Even educated people who can afford a good lawyer struggle to think straight. They feel alone against the system. Judges rely on reports by experts, social workers and guardians, many of whom are used to working together. This can produce a fatal lack of objectivity. I have spoken to some exemplary social workers and judges in the past few years. It is not my intention to demonise them all. But we must be able to spot whether the same individuals are reaching erroneous conclusions over and over again. At the moment any expert, social worker or judge who makes mistakes, goes beyond their brief or is on a crusade against parents is virtually immune from scrutiny. They do not expect that their evidence or their judgments will ever be made public. Remember that Professor Roy Meadow was only uncovered because he gave misleading evidence in the criminal courts, which are open. If family courts remain closed we will never be able to feel sure that justice is being done.
Over the next few days I hope to paint a more detailed picture of the pieces of the secret state, offer some explanations as to why mistakes are made, and to outline some solutions. The Times' interest is more than theoretical: we will continue to challenge various injunctions in the courts. But we also need your help by asking you to write to your MP. We will not give up. Because to sever a child from its family without due cause is licensed state oppression of the worst kind. It is, in fact, child abuse.
Family justice - Why the Government must act
Privacy laws are designed to protect at-risk children. Yet these same laws are cited to prevent local authority childcare professionals, expert witnesses and guardians from being subjected to scrutiny for decisions that can tear families apart.
The system claims that the welfare of children is paramount. But the only way to make the welfare of children paramount is to make childcare professionals properly accountable for their decisions.
The press is allowed to report the workings of the criminal courts, even in rape cases, where victim identities are kept confidential. Yet it is denied access to the family courts that make decisions with far-reaching consequences. In 2005 the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee advised that more transparency was needed and that family courts should be opened to the press in all but exceptional circumstances.
The Government consulted on the proposals, recognising that public confidence was plummeting. But it lost its nerve. The Ministry for Justice has yet to publish the results of a second consultation, which ended last October.
Eight months later the Government cannot even say when it will respond to the consultation.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Child Custody Battle - Judges told to hammer obstinate parents
Child Custody Battle - Judges told to hammer obstinate parents
Associated Press - July 7, 2008 1:05 PM ET
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Child custody and visitation orders often are contentious issues for broken families in South Dakota, and now legislators want to help settle some of those problems.
A new state law require judges to either penalize or force people to comply if they violate child custody or visitation orders.
Until now, judges could jail and fine those people but did not have to.
However, the new law still gives them discretion to decide the appropriate remedies -- including such things as making violators pay the aggreived person's legal fees, having to take parent-education classes, or paying a civil fine.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Associated Press - July 7, 2008 1:05 PM ET
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Child custody and visitation orders often are contentious issues for broken families in South Dakota, and now legislators want to help settle some of those problems.
A new state law require judges to either penalize or force people to comply if they violate child custody or visitation orders.
Until now, judges could jail and fine those people but did not have to.
However, the new law still gives them discretion to decide the appropriate remedies -- including such things as making violators pay the aggreived person's legal fees, having to take parent-education classes, or paying a civil fine.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Child Custody Battle - Dad defiant over tug-of-love child
Child Custody Battle - Dad defiant over tug-of-love child
By Geoffrey Bew
A BAHRAINI father, who was arrested for a second time after he was accused of kidnapping his child during a tug-of-love child custody battle, says he'd rather go to prison than hand her over.
The mother Lecita Flores says she has not seen or spoken to her five-year-old daughter in more than a week, as he refuses to reveal her whereabouts.
Officers from Hoora Police Station detained her ex-husband during a raid on his home on Wednesday night, but did not find Sarah.
He was brought before a Sharia Court judge the following day, who gave him 72 hours to say where Sarah was being held or remain in custody.
However, Ms Flores said the man refused and on Sunday was given another 72 hours to give police the information.
"When they brought him to the court, he said 'I will not hand over the baby'," she told the GDN.
"The judge told him he will not be released until the baby is returned to me. He said it is better to stay in jail for 10 years rather than give up his baby."
The 42-year-old believes her daughter is still in Bahrain as she says her ex-husband and his family cannot leave the country because of a court travel ban against them.
"Now my lawyer has told me I have to file a case against her. Until now I have not spoken to my daughter. What can I do?"
The Execution Court last month issued an arrest warrant for the father after he was accused of breaching his visitation rights by failing to return Sarah to Ms Flores.
It is the fourth time a judge has ordered the child be handed back to her, who has been fighting a custody battle with the man since April 2004.
She was granted custody of her child during a Sharia Court hearing at the Justice Ministry, Manama, in March.
Ms Flores won the case after her ex-husband had been arrested for refusing to hand Sarah over.
However, he appealed against the custody verdict and the Sharia Court agreed he could take his daughter twice a week. In the latest alleged kidnapping, the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had picked up Sarah with his family from Manama Social Centre on Monday, June 23, and was supposed to return her at 8pm the following day. But Ms Flores said he never showed up and then refused to return Sarah, so she filed a kidnapping charge. She first raised a case against her ex-husband in Kuwait, where the couple met and married. The Kuwait Sharia Court granted her full custody of her daughter after he fled to Bahrain with Sarah, telling Ms Flores he had divorced her and was keeping Sarah. When she followed him to Bahrain in November 2004, she was told she had to file a case here as the Kuwaiti ruling did not apply. Ms Flores' ex-husband had also earlier broken a court order in 2005 and fled with the child to Qatar, where he has relatives.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
By Geoffrey Bew
A BAHRAINI father, who was arrested for a second time after he was accused of kidnapping his child during a tug-of-love child custody battle, says he'd rather go to prison than hand her over.
The mother Lecita Flores says she has not seen or spoken to her five-year-old daughter in more than a week, as he refuses to reveal her whereabouts.
Officers from Hoora Police Station detained her ex-husband during a raid on his home on Wednesday night, but did not find Sarah.
He was brought before a Sharia Court judge the following day, who gave him 72 hours to say where Sarah was being held or remain in custody.
However, Ms Flores said the man refused and on Sunday was given another 72 hours to give police the information.
"When they brought him to the court, he said 'I will not hand over the baby'," she told the GDN.
"The judge told him he will not be released until the baby is returned to me. He said it is better to stay in jail for 10 years rather than give up his baby."
The 42-year-old believes her daughter is still in Bahrain as she says her ex-husband and his family cannot leave the country because of a court travel ban against them.
"Now my lawyer has told me I have to file a case against her. Until now I have not spoken to my daughter. What can I do?"
The Execution Court last month issued an arrest warrant for the father after he was accused of breaching his visitation rights by failing to return Sarah to Ms Flores.
It is the fourth time a judge has ordered the child be handed back to her, who has been fighting a custody battle with the man since April 2004.
She was granted custody of her child during a Sharia Court hearing at the Justice Ministry, Manama, in March.
Ms Flores won the case after her ex-husband had been arrested for refusing to hand Sarah over.
However, he appealed against the custody verdict and the Sharia Court agreed he could take his daughter twice a week. In the latest alleged kidnapping, the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had picked up Sarah with his family from Manama Social Centre on Monday, June 23, and was supposed to return her at 8pm the following day. But Ms Flores said he never showed up and then refused to return Sarah, so she filed a kidnapping charge. She first raised a case against her ex-husband in Kuwait, where the couple met and married. The Kuwait Sharia Court granted her full custody of her daughter after he fled to Bahrain with Sarah, telling Ms Flores he had divorced her and was keeping Sarah. When she followed him to Bahrain in November 2004, she was told she had to file a case here as the Kuwaiti ruling did not apply. Ms Flores' ex-husband had also earlier broken a court order in 2005 and fled with the child to Qatar, where he has relatives.
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Child Custody for Fathers - Make divorce manageable with tips from NLSO
Child Custody for Fathers - Make divorce manageable with tips from NLSO
By:Lt. Dave Lincoln , NLSO NC Det Groton
Divorce is an unfortunate fact in the lives of many military members, and American families in general.
Military members often encounter more complex family law issues because of our transience and time-sensitive commitments. Additionally, divorce often involves strong emotional issues that make the process more difficult.
Many people instinctively want to make a clean break and just sign the papers to "get it over with." Typically, this approach hurts your long-term interests, and often creates difficult obstacles throughout your life. Instead, take a deep breath, get informed, and develop a strategy to come to a durable, fair, and amiable agreement with your spouse in the most amiable and efficient way.
Divorce guidelines are governed by state law, and can vary significantly. Below are a few general tips to get you started with the process.
Choose a state: First, determine which state to file your divorce. This can be difficult for transient military members with children. Typically, you can file in the state you were married or the state of residence for either spouse. If your spouse has custody of the child in another state, the custody portion or the entire divorce might be handled in that state. Different states have different time requirements for residence and separation. Check the American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly for individual state requirements.
Determine "grounds" for divorce: Most states have a no-fault option. This is the easiest and most affordable way to proceed, because in most cases a no-fault divorce allows couples to handle the process without lawyers (pro-se). You can also divorce on grounds of drug addiction, adultery, abuse, desertion, to name a few; but these grounds can be difficult to prove and lead to large legal fees.
Separation: Some states require couples to file for separation or live apart for a period of time prior to filing for divorce. During this period of time, it is wise to start discussing a division of assets, custody, and visitation with your spouse. You may also consider making a separation agreement; this is a contract that formalizes alimony, child support, and any possible issue that may arise during your divorce. Many divorce judges will incorporate all or part of the separation agreement into the divorce decree.
Family support: You are obligated to pay child support to your children. You should do this immediately, even without a court order. You might also have to pay spousal support if your spouse's income is not sufficient. Each state has support guidelines, and the Navy has additional guidelines to help determine a baseline of support. Make sure any separation agreement or divorce decree reflects your current income and allows for future flexibility to adjust for income changes on both sides. Finally, do not move large amounts of money, take out loans, or change beneficiaries on SGLI without consultation. Making dramatic financial moves immediately prior to divorce creates the perception of foul-play.
Child Custody: Most states guarantee the non-custodial parent a right to some visitation, and bar one parent from taking the child out of state during the divorce proceeding. Children are held sacred by family law courts, and judges will determine what is in the best interests of the child above all else. It is wise, if possible, to keep all parties in the state in which you file.
Do it yourself: Divorce attorneys typically charge by the hour; that means they make more money the longer and more contentious the conflict! A Do-It-Yourself Divorce (Pro Se), if allowed by the state, saves both you and your spouse time and money. Pro Se filing can cost as little as $450. A lawyer can cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 for each party. You can get help with the pro-se process at Navy Legal or with the clerk of the Family Law court in your region.
Fees and finances: You will need to get financial records together for the court, so get started on that as soon as possible. If you decide to hire an attorney, take your time to shop around. You must be able to trust the attorney to work for you. Make sure to get as much detail about billing and services as possible and make sure the attorney keeps you informed. Remember this: You are the boss; Attorneys work for you, and if you do not like them, then fire them. The ABA has lists of attorneys that specialize in family law on their Web site.
Do not sign anything you do not understand or agree with. If the agreement says one thing, but your spouse promised something else, you will be bound to the terms of the signed agreement. Navy Legal cannot file papers or represent you in court; however, we can advise you on any part of the process, so just make an appointment.
This list is a summary of some of the important issues that arise during a divorce. Please stop by Navy Legal, Building 84, and make an appointment. Our office has many resources, some of which are listed below, and lawyers to offer advice. Be prepared to spend time and money up front, to avoid long-term hassle and pain down the road!
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
By:Lt. Dave Lincoln , NLSO NC Det Groton
Divorce is an unfortunate fact in the lives of many military members, and American families in general.
Military members often encounter more complex family law issues because of our transience and time-sensitive commitments. Additionally, divorce often involves strong emotional issues that make the process more difficult.
Many people instinctively want to make a clean break and just sign the papers to "get it over with." Typically, this approach hurts your long-term interests, and often creates difficult obstacles throughout your life. Instead, take a deep breath, get informed, and develop a strategy to come to a durable, fair, and amiable agreement with your spouse in the most amiable and efficient way.
Divorce guidelines are governed by state law, and can vary significantly. Below are a few general tips to get you started with the process.
Choose a state: First, determine which state to file your divorce. This can be difficult for transient military members with children. Typically, you can file in the state you were married or the state of residence for either spouse. If your spouse has custody of the child in another state, the custody portion or the entire divorce might be handled in that state. Different states have different time requirements for residence and separation. Check the American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly for individual state requirements.
Determine "grounds" for divorce: Most states have a no-fault option. This is the easiest and most affordable way to proceed, because in most cases a no-fault divorce allows couples to handle the process without lawyers (pro-se). You can also divorce on grounds of drug addiction, adultery, abuse, desertion, to name a few; but these grounds can be difficult to prove and lead to large legal fees.
Separation: Some states require couples to file for separation or live apart for a period of time prior to filing for divorce. During this period of time, it is wise to start discussing a division of assets, custody, and visitation with your spouse. You may also consider making a separation agreement; this is a contract that formalizes alimony, child support, and any possible issue that may arise during your divorce. Many divorce judges will incorporate all or part of the separation agreement into the divorce decree.
Family support: You are obligated to pay child support to your children. You should do this immediately, even without a court order. You might also have to pay spousal support if your spouse's income is not sufficient. Each state has support guidelines, and the Navy has additional guidelines to help determine a baseline of support. Make sure any separation agreement or divorce decree reflects your current income and allows for future flexibility to adjust for income changes on both sides. Finally, do not move large amounts of money, take out loans, or change beneficiaries on SGLI without consultation. Making dramatic financial moves immediately prior to divorce creates the perception of foul-play.
Child Custody: Most states guarantee the non-custodial parent a right to some visitation, and bar one parent from taking the child out of state during the divorce proceeding. Children are held sacred by family law courts, and judges will determine what is in the best interests of the child above all else. It is wise, if possible, to keep all parties in the state in which you file.
Do it yourself: Divorce attorneys typically charge by the hour; that means they make more money the longer and more contentious the conflict! A Do-It-Yourself Divorce (Pro Se), if allowed by the state, saves both you and your spouse time and money. Pro Se filing can cost as little as $450. A lawyer can cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 for each party. You can get help with the pro-se process at Navy Legal or with the clerk of the Family Law court in your region.
Fees and finances: You will need to get financial records together for the court, so get started on that as soon as possible. If you decide to hire an attorney, take your time to shop around. You must be able to trust the attorney to work for you. Make sure to get as much detail about billing and services as possible and make sure the attorney keeps you informed. Remember this: You are the boss; Attorneys work for you, and if you do not like them, then fire them. The ABA has lists of attorneys that specialize in family law on their Web site.
Do not sign anything you do not understand or agree with. If the agreement says one thing, but your spouse promised something else, you will be bound to the terms of the signed agreement. Navy Legal cannot file papers or represent you in court; however, we can advise you on any part of the process, so just make an appointment.
This list is a summary of some of the important issues that arise during a divorce. Please stop by Navy Legal, Building 84, and make an appointment. Our office has many resources, some of which are listed below, and lawyers to offer advice. Be prepared to spend time and money up front, to avoid long-term hassle and pain down the road!
Child custody for fathers Child custody laws for dads and husbands. Custody Warriors is a members only site for fathers that want to fight and win equal rights to raise their children. Learn child custody laws, share your child custody experiences with other fathers across the United States & around the World. Learn to prepare for the child custody battle ahead and receive feedback from dads who have shared your experiences. There are hundreds of private members only sites devoted to women and mothers seeking child support and custody. Child custody laws and courts around the world discriminate against fathers in child custody cases. It is time for fathers to unite. There is strength in numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
