It’s human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society.
Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
Goals of the Fathers’ Rights Movement – The fathers’ rights movement arose in response to the perception that fathers were not being given equal treatment in child custody litigation. Fathers’ advocacy groups typically to focus upon some or all of the following beliefs:
TWO TAMPA JUDGE CANDIDATES HAVING A FIGHT THAT BRINGS ON A 911 CALL?
PERHAPS BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED IMMEDIATELY!
ARE THESE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE WE WANT SITTING ON THE BENCH IN FAMILY COURT?
On a pretty fall afternoon last Sunday, the good citizens of Hillsborough County stopped by the Jan Platt Library in South Tampa to cast their early votes.
Outside, campaign supporters waved signs. Birds sang and children played. The scene was practically Rockwellian.
Until things got “loud,” “out of hand” and “ugly” — in the words of the poll worker who called 911.
And all of this was related to a race between two people running not in that bloodbath of a campaign for president, but to be a local judge.
Tampa lawyers Gary Dolgin and Melissa “Missy” Polo are vying for a circuit court seat — a prestigious post that pays $146,000 a year. Because judges are supposed to be impartial and dignified, the rules for running are different. Candidates do not generally talk issues, tout political parties or bad-mouth each other. They pretty much recite their respective resumes. I know — yawn.
So yes, a 911 call gets your attention. Things got ugly over at the library.
Facebook shared a post of mine about Opt IN USA from exactly one year ago today. In realizing that the campaign has been consistently described since then, I thought about complaints I’ve received that not everyone understands and can relate to Opt IN USA. Of course I cannot imagine being unsure of whether I’ve been persecuted or psychologically tortured through misuse of administrative (as in quasi-judicial) or court (as in judicial) proceedings in America. It seems those of us unfortunate enough to have had such an experience would realize it happened or is happening. And Opt IN USA would speak to our embattled souls, even if aspects of the campaign left some of us confused. While anything can be simplified, not everything is simple. To thoroughly understand the problem of persistent U.S. legal system abuse is to perceive all of its complexities, which is helpful in devising solutions through which Opt IN USA constituents can be made whole. Opt IN USA is about much more than being on the losing end of legal proceedings. Instead, the campaign identifies and addresses distinct patterns of judicial (including quasi-judicial) conduct and case outcomes that evidence deliberate violations of rights. Moreover, Opt IN USA links the failure of America’s current legal and political processes to redress this ominous problem to certain of their structural/logistical deficiencies. These deficiencies manifest as inadequate judicial oversight. In other words, Opt IN USA goes beyond scandal advocacy, i.e., the process of “exposing” specific U.S. legal system bad guys in hopes of evoking enough outrage to get them ousted and reparations extended for their misdeeds. Instead, the campaign focuses on exposing how U.S. government unduly insulates this class of culprits from accountability and the devastation heaped on countless Americans, including children, as a result. The goal of Opt IN USA and its sister organizations is to trigger genuine reform . . . not when the targeted bad guys are adequately proven to be bad or society is adequately protective of their victims, but when it is clear that everyone CONSCIOUSLY acquiescing to inadequate judicial oversight in America is complicit in the resulting harm. True, Opt IN USA gets a bit “high brow” at times. But that is to reach Ivory Towers in which our complaints are dismissed as mere rantings of the confused, uninformed, misguided, and disgruntled. Our message must resonate there, arguably more than anywhere. As direct action is undertaken on Main Street, Opt IN USA and its sister organizations help ensure such efforts are not undermined by credible propaganda flowing from any Ivory Tower. Surely not everyone discontent with America’s legal system has a well-founded complaint. But it is only through a fair and impartial administration of justice that our legitimate grievances can be properly sorted from those that are unfounded. America owes all of its citizens a fair and impartial administration of justice. Learn more, join our efforts, and otherwise support Opt IN USA by visiting https://m.facebook.com/Opt.IN.USA/
06/18/15- Miami- Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Valerie R. Manno Schurr, 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida.
Unwed biological fathers are often told they have no rights when it comes to their infant children when placed for adoption. The fact they fathered their child is not considered important when the mother decides, on her own, to give the infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances.
But, this gender disparity in equal protection and due process in parental rights is changing.
Recently, the State of Utah adopted House Bill 308 that is designed to safeguard unwed paternal rights in regards to children six months or younger from being adopted. This law would require unwed fathers to be issued official notification of the mother’s intention to give their infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances. Once received, the father would then have 30 days to assert his rights as a parent and petition the court for custody. This closes a loophole which had allowed mothers to circumvent notifying the biological father and thus committing the ultimate act of parental alienation – terminating the father-child relationship forever.
Common sense and fair play would argue that if an unwed mother decides to give up her rights to a child, then the biological father would automatically be given the opportunity to take custody of his child. Instead, a stranger can be given the right to adopt the child, often without the father even knowing he will never see his child again.
“Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interest,” Judge Sohail Mohammed wrote.
I can understand why father’s rights groups see the ruling as discrimination: It privileges motherhood over fatherhood.
Rebecca DeLuccia and Steven Plotnick agree that they started a relationship in late 2012 and that DeLuccia learned she was pregnant in February 2013. Plotnick proposed and they got engaged. By September, they had broken up. Plotnick wanted to be involved with the pregnancy and with the child. Which is good, right? It’s what we want fathers to do. But in this case, for whatever reason, Plotnick lawyered up. In October, Plotnick’s lawyer wrote to DeLuccia, and then she got a lawyer too, and over the next month letters went back and forth about who would sign the birth certificate, who would be at the hospital for the birth, and—as Mohammed delicately puts it—whether there would be “litigation to resolve the matter if it could not be resolved amicably.”
In November, Plotnick sued, saying DeLuccia was refusing to let him sign the birth certificate, tell him when she went into labor, or allow him to be present for the delivery. DeLuccia responded by denying the first two accusations but saying that yes, she “will request her privacy in the delivery room,” as the judge writes. She said she would put Plotnick’s name on the list of visitors for after the delivery, though.
That sounds like a pretty good compromise to me. Once the baby is born, it’s about the baby. Before that, though, it’s about the mother, too—there is just no way to separate her from the fetus. That’s the basic reality of nature that should allow a mother to decide the circumstances of her labor and delivery.
“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulationwith respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother’s liberty than on the father’s,”
If a women doesn’t want her ex in the room while she gives birth—an ex who she’s not talking to and who after all is suing her—then he can wait in the hallway. He’ll still have plenty of opportunity to bond with his newborn.
An appeals court quickly reversed that order. Again, fathers just cannot have rights over fetuses that interfere with a woman’s freedom of choice and movement in this way. Once the child is born, the law can accord equal rights to fathers and mothers. Before birth, it just cannot.
I recognize the pathos and irony here in turning fathers away. To resolve the dispute between Plotnick and DeLuccia, Mohammed turned to New Jersey’s parentage act, which he pointed out was designed “to help families deal with the problems posed by fathers who seek to avoid paying child support.”
In other words, deadbeat dads. Steven Plotnick has been anything but that, and with any luck his child’s life—and maybe DeLuccia’s, too—will be the better for it. But the impulse to want what’s best for his child could have led Plotnick to give DeLuccia her space rather than (figuratively) pounding on her delivery room door. As Mohammed pointed out, New Jersey and federal law also protect DeLuccia’s privacy rights as a patient. And he rightly notes that dealing with Plotnick’s uninvited presence could “add to an already stressful situation” in a way that “could endanger both the mother and the fetus.”
Surely Plotnick would agree that the baby’s health is paramount here.
There is little question that fraud in procuring a settlement agreement can justify setting aside the agreement and judgment. E.g., In re Marriage of Modnick, 33 Cal. 3d 897, 191 Cal. Rptr. 629 (1983); Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 612 P.2d 1175 (1980); Anderson v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Daffin v. Daffin, 567 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. 1978).
Fraud in procuring a settlement can also be the basis for an independent tort action. Hall v. Hall, 455 So. 2d 813 (Ala. 1984); In re Benge, 151 Ariz. 219, 726 P.2d 1088 (Ct. App. 1986); Dale v. Dale, 66 Cal. App. 4th1172, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 (1998); Den v. Den, 222 A.2d 647 (D.C. 1966); Oehme v. Oehme, 10 Kan. App. 2d 73, 691 P.2d 1325 (1984); Burris v. Burris, 904 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. 1995); Carney v. Wohl, 785 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990); Hess v. Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357 (1990). See alsoVickery v. Vickery, 1996 WL 255755 (Tex. Ct. App., December 5, 1996) (wife awarded $9 million against husband for fraudulently procuring divorce and marital settlement agreement, and $450,000 against husband’s attorney),affirmed over dissent in light of Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998),Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. 1999). See generally, Robert G. Spector,Marital Torts: The Current Legal Landscape, 33 Fam. L. Q. 745, 757 (1999); Cary L. Cheifetz, The Future of Matrimonial Torts: The Unmapped Landscape, 15 Fair$hare 4 (August 1995). The courts are especially harsh with spouses that commit fraud who are attorneys. Anderson v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Scholler v. Scholler, 10 Ohio St. 2d 98, 462 N.E.2d 158 (1984); Webb v. Webb, 16 Va. App. 486, 431 S.E.2d 55 (1993).
The concealment of marital assets during the divorce proceeding has also given rise to tort actions. Swain v. Swain, 576 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); Garrity v. Garrity, 399 Mass. 367, 504 N.E.2d 617 (1987). But seeBeers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Nederlander v. Nederlander, 205 Mich. App. 123, 517 N.W.2d 768 (1994); Smith v. Smith, 113 N.C. app. 410, 438 S.E.2d 457 (1994); Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998); Gardner v. Gardner, 175 Wis. 2d 420, 499 N.W.2d 266 (Ct. App. 1993).
Spouses have even been successfuly in asserting violations of securities laws. Evans v. Dale, 896 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1990). But seeHead v. Head, 759 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1985); McHugh v. McHugh, 676 F. Supp. 856 (N.D. Ill. 1988); d’Elia v. d’Elia, 58 Cal. App. 4th 415, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (1997).
But what can a spouse do when a third party or parties conspires with a spouse to hide marital assets? Is there a cause of action against the third parties? Increasingly, some spouses have been turning to civil conspiracy and Civil RICO.
I wanted to take some time out of my schedule to discuss Turner v. Rogers while it’s still recent and I remember my thoughts on the matter. First, I will provide some basic background on the case. Then, I will discuss the basic legal and policy arguments of the case. Finally, I will turn attention to my predictions and the importance of this case for indigent advocacy in general.
I. HISTORY OF THE CASE
What is this Turner v. Rogers case I’m talking about? The answer, thankfully, is rather straightforward. This case involves two indigent parents involved in a dispute over child support. The mother, Ms. Rogers, brought a straightforward court claim against Mr. Turner for child support he owed to their daughter. So far, nothing out of the ordinary.
The noteworthy aspect of the case is that Mr. Turner is indigent, a formal term for a person who is poor; presumably below the poverty line. In terms of full disclosure, both Ms. Rogers and Mr. Turner were indigent parents.
The court in this case held Mr. Turner in contempt for failing to pay for his child support obligations. A proper defense to this failure is an inability to pay based upon lack of necessary income. If that’s the case, why did the judge hold Mr. Turner in contempt? There is both a broad and specific answer. The broad one is that the poverty defense is an affirmative one — one that a defendant must prove in order to avoid being held in contempt. The specific answer is that Mr. Turner lacked an attorney, who would have certainly asserted this defense.
In these situations, a person can typically be held in either civil or criminal contempt, the specifics of which vary by jurisdiction. This case occurred in South Carolina, where a person facing civil contempt may be incarcerated as a result. That’s what occurred with Mr. Turner, who was sentenced to serve jail time for being what most us know in lay terms as being “a deadbeat dad.”
Mr. Turner appealed his case all the way up to the South Carolina Supreme Court on the grounds that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed for him since he could not pay for one on his own. The South Carolina Supreme Court disagreed with his claim and, as a result, he petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear his case.
Family law is not for the faint of heart, and institute teaches best principles and methods ~ Tulsa World
Family law is a tough practice.
Children’s futures are at stake. Homes and any monies involved are being divided. Cases turn ugly in a moment, and attorneys representing their clients must be prepared for these sometimes unexpected mood shifts.
Some Tulsa attorneys admit they would rather try a number of heinous murder cases rather than one family law case.
The researchers predicted that, after the children whose parents weren’t divorced, the children who lived with one parent would exhibit the fewest issues. However, these children were actually significantly more likely to experience various health problems
Judges have been heard to say they dread the controversial and contested family law cases because no one clearly is the winner and everyone loses when all cards have been played.
Even attorneys involved in a family law practice have difficult times because of the twists and turns a case might have. Shane Henry, who practices family law with the Fry and Elder Law Firm, said he consistently lost cases during his first three years in practice and knew he needed additional training.
Award-Winning and Prize-Winning Author of Access Denied, The Wretched, The Roots of Evil, The Ghost of Clothes, Omonolidee, First Words and Unzipped: The Mind of a Madman, The Deeper Roots of Evil, UFO, Cinema, Realm of Rhyme along with numerous short stories, poems and articles.
The fact they fathered their child is not considered important when the mother decides, on her own, to give the infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances.
The tyrannical nature of Family Courts and their impact on fathers and children
Civil Rights in Family Law Florida 