di·vorce – dəˈvôrs/ noun ~ the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body.
verb ~ legally dissolve one’s marriage with (someone).
A divorce can be many things. It is a legal proceeding to end a marriage. Divorce laws differ from state to state regarding the requirements and reasons or grounds for a divorce. The mechanisms and procedures for obtaining a divorce differ from state to state as well. In every state there is a legal requirement that a divorce proceeding be filed to end the legal marriage between a couple.
Consider the recent custody case reported by the New York Post involving Dr. Eric Braverman, a highly committed father and respected neuro-surgeon in Manhattan who spent more than $4.5 million in an unsuccessful attempt to retain a meaningful relationship with his children. A judge-appointed attorney for those same children went to horrendous lengths to pervert this man’s efforts with fees approximating a half million dollars.
Now come on folks, let’s not lose sight of sanity here! How can one lawyer acting on behalf of immature and unsuspecting children be worth so much on a single case? Was this lawyer truly committed to “client” interests or was he seeking to justify his gigantic personal pay-out for a dubious role in a sensitive matter?
Compounding this uncontrolled greed is the lawyer glut entering the market. There are more than 1.25 million licensed attorneys in the United States today with about 300,000 in California alone and at least that many seeking a law school education each year. These people have to work somewhere and the bureaucrats are making room for them in family court. This is where apprentices typically learn their trade and marginal lawyers can concoct litigation to last an entire career.
To give an appearance of ethics, many states impose rules which prohibit lawyers from executing contingent fee arrangements in domestic relations cases. However, exceptions have been crafted which allow them for support collection purposes. This gets very interesting when you look deeper into the deceptions and the greed.
Think of it! A lawyer can now charge thousands of dollars in up front fees and billable hours during protracted litigation and then double dip on the back side by getting a third of the actual support intended for the children. The state typically gets all the interest generated off these awards in addition to a custodial fee and the federal incentive money.
In New York, the tax department is assigned support enforcement authority. In effect the state is intervening with all its machinery on the side of the so-called “custodial parent” while no similar powers are offered to the lower class parent to remedy child access deprivations. It prompted one state Supreme Court justice to question the state’s involvement in a private debt between self sufficient parents.
If you’re a debtor, you could be charged with your lawyer’s fees, the children’s lawyer, opposing fees, the contingency collection fee and court costs such as counseling, supervision and “parent education” as they call it. In countless cases, particularly those involving veterans and minorities, the debtor fathers will never be able to complete their servitude, landing them in debtor prisons. This will only add to our tax burdens and a dubious distinction as the most imprisoned population in the “free” world.
We’ve been doing our best to inform you of these alarming developments because the media is ignoring this crisis. But we cannot continue to do so without your financial support in a war against a trillion dollar industry. Public apathy has allowed this to happen along with the lawyer greed shockingly rationalized to be in our children’s best interests. It is a gold mine of unparalleled proportion that is causing so many of our social ills today.
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents’ DUE PROCESS rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]).
Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard.
However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]).
Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
NEW STUDY ~ Children fare better when they spend time living with both of their parents.
This Divorce Arrangement Stresses Kids Out Most | TIME
Regarding the well-being of kids with divorced parents, the debate over what kind of custodyarrangement is best rages on. But a new study, published Monday in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,suggests that children fare better when they spend time living with both of their parents.
That goes against some current thinking that kids in shared-custody situations are exposed to more stress due to constantly moving around and the social upheaval that can come along with that. “Child experts and people in general assumed that these children should be more stressed,” says study author Malin Bergström, PhD, researcher at the Centre for Health Equity Studies in Stockholm, Sweden. “But this study opposes a major concern that this should not be good for children.”
The researchers wanted to see if kids who lived part time with both parents were more stressed than those who lived with just one parent. They looked at national data from almost 150,000 12- and 15-year-old students—each in either 6th grade or 9th grade—and studied their psychosomatic health problems, including sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, loss of appetite, headaches, stomachaches and feeling tense, sad or dizzy. They found that 69% of them lived in nuclear families, while 19% spent time living with both parents and about 13% lived with only one parent.
Kids in nuclear families reported the fewest psychosomatic problems, but the more interesting finding was that students who lived with both of their separated parents reported significantly fewer problems than kids who lived with only one parent.
“We think that having everyday contact with both parents seems to be more important, in terms of stress, than living in two different homes,” says Bergström. “It may be difficult to keep up on engaged parenting if you only see your child every second weekend.”
Having two parents also tends to double the number of resources a kid is exposed to, including social circles, family and material goods like money.
“Only having access to half of that may make children more vulnerable or stressed than having it from both parents, even though they don’t live together,” she says.
A false accusation is where an unfounded or unsubstantiated allegation is made against a person. A false allegation can occur as the result of intentional lying on the part of the accuser; or unintentionally or resulting from deliberate or accidental suggestive questioning, or faulty interviewing techniques.
The accusations can be broken down in three categories: -An allegation about alleged events that did not occur; -An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent. -An allegation that is partly false but the person’s account of the facts implicated the accused person wrong. -The biggest effect that a false accusation has is on a person’s character whereby the accusations made defame a person’s reputation. False accusations may be made by the police or any other person.
Can I sue for false Accusations? YES
You can sue for false accusations made by a person or the police. The effect of false accusations affects a person’s reputation because they are either falsely accused of a crime or falsely accused of act that did not take place.
Common types of false allegations involves sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic violence claims, or the commission of any crime. A person can sue under the tort of defamation which may either be in the form of slander, libel or defamation of character. Slander is untrue words spoken orally with the purpose of harming an individual reputation. It must be proven that the individual made the statements maliciously to harm the reputation of a person for their own personal reasons. While libel is where statements are printed that falsely depicts individual in a certain way that ruin their reputation. To prove libel it has to be shown that the printed allegations were not only insulting and offensive but it was it malice. Defamation of character concerns the act of making false statements about a person which blemishes or tarnishes his/her reputation. Defamation of character can either be libel or slander.
False accusation is considered to be defamatory per se category where of false statements are so innately harmful. Traditionally, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. This shows the serious damaging effects that false accusations may have on an individual’s reputation. An example of this is where someone accuses you falsely of rape. It is common knowledge that being accused of rape tarnishes a person’s reputation. A person is awarded damages for false accusations when a defamation claim is brought against them.
Can I sue a person for False Accusations? YES
Where someone is falsely accusing you of acts that did not take place or actions which did transpired but you are falsely being accused you can sue them. First it is always best and cheaper to demand the person to cease and desist or to make a public apology. However, because of the nature of the allegations that were made you probably want vindication by the court to state that the person was malicious and vindictive or they did not have probable cause to allege that you did such an act.
Additionally, you may have suffered mental distress as a result of the false statements as such compensation is needed. Compensation is awarded in cases of false accusations to recompense the person for damage to reputation and any anxiety caused by it.
Falsely accusing someone for acts which may or may not be criminal can seriously damage a person’s reputation. Therefore, you can sue anyone who was responsible for making the false accusations. These persons can include police officers where they act without probable cause or anyone acts with malicious intent. The issue of false allegation in the criminal sphere is so serious that proof of loss does not have to be shown by the victim before they can receive damages.
I would have not needed nine pages and $2.5 million in grants to write that letter.
Dear Colleagues:
We’ve at the US Department of Justice (yes “Justice” is in our name) observed that many of your, particularly judges municipal and local JP courts have been violating the US Constitution US Supreme Court precedent (which given your position, you should already know) by incarcerating and/or extorting the indigent for fine money to fill your jurisdictions coffers, and doing so without proper legal, constitutional hearing, or providing legal counsel to the accused.
AS OF NOW YOU ARE ON NOTICE THAT THAT WILL STOP IMMEDIATELY !!!!!
Outlined in items 1-7 are various precedents which we at the DOJ have become aware that you may be violating. Being a “judge” you can look up the case cites yourself. (Again something that you should already be aware of and know how to do.)
HARVESTING JUSTICE starting with the Low Hanging Fruit, i.e. Senate reconfirmation hearings on Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner — OPT-IN-USA
The prospect of Joseph P. Carson securing the support of our national grassroots legal/judicial reform community transforms his 25 year long quest for OSC and MSPB accountability into a potential judicial accountabilitycoup d’etat in America.
Our goal is appropriate judicial accountability. There should be substantive and procedural mechanisms by which it is supplied on a case-by-case basis in America. And, of course, America is no stranger to appropriate judicial accountability. But many (too many) Americans are denied that measure of good government. Yet that injustice should not and, in fact, cannot be our Swan Song. We are not swans. We are Phoenixes!
Campaign coordinators will assist campaign participants in following up with whomever they met at those meetings.
Already Opt IN USA is teaming up with some of the world’s most accomplished human rights activists to address the relative isolation of Americans from the international human rights community and the corresponding threat for current and potential targets of The Third Degree.
Opt IN USA and its sister organization, NFOJA (National Forum On Judicial Accountability) will assist any and all willing Opt IN USA participants in organizing and mobilizing for local and/or state-focused judicial reform advocacy.
IN THE MEANTIME, we should try to get a wi
n for judicial accountability under our belts, and the U.S. Senate reconfirmation hearings on Special Counsel Carolyn N. Lerner presents an opportunity for us to do just that!
OF ALL the ways in which America is exceptional, its practice of electing judges is one of the least obvious and most striking. The spectacle of someone who has the power to hand out death sentences making stump speeches, seeking endorsements and raising funds has long seemed odd to outsiders. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose travels around the country coincided with the spread of judicial elections, predicted that “these innovations will, sooner or later, have disastrous results.” It is a view shared by many of the judges running for office around the country.
Judicial elections are becoming a lot like any other. Tennessee’s recent race was a good example. A few days before the poll Gary Wade, the chief justice on the state’s Supreme Court, sat in his office, a room enlivened by a bearskin rug on the floor, complete with paws and snarling mouth. Mr Wade had faced the voters five times before, but this election was the first time he had to do any actual campaigning. Tennessee’s race became unexpectedly political: the three judges up for retention were hit with adverts denouncing them as Obamacare-loving liberals, though their court has never ruled on the subject. The judges responded by raising over $1m to buy adverts of their own.
This means, if the state-as in a judge- wants to infringe or terminate this fundamental liberty interest, he or she had better apply the process due to a parent first. Otherwise, its action is explicitly forbidden. Id. at 721. If the state cannot show that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest, then the state cannot touch the fit parent’s right at all. Ibid. No other avenue is constitutionally available to accomplish state action, which will adversely affect a parent’s fundamental liberty interest.
If a parent appeals an adverse action by a state which has affected his or her fundamental liberty interest, the reviewing Court must apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to determine whether the state action was indeed achieved without the state showing that it had a narrowly tailored compelling interest to take the action it did. Id. This is a compulsory standard. It’s not an option. Nowhere does it say that if the reviewing Court has sat down and collectively decided, for whatever arbitrary reasoning, that it should apply a lesser standard, that it can do so.
That being said, tell me. Where exactly do Grandparents’ “Rights”, come from? When a parent is brought before a Court and his or her fundamental liberty interest is at stake, there are only TWO competing interests here- the parent’s and the state’s. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759-60 (U.S.N.Y., 1982). If the parent is fit, then the child’s interest, coincides with his or her fit parent’s. Id. at 745, 748, 760-761 (1982). The child’s interest does not stand alone. As such is the case, where exactly-constitutionally- does the Grandparent’s so called “interest” fit into the equation? I can tell you where-nowhere- because they don’t have any “rights”- not under these United States’ Constitution..
The Justices who decided Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), deliberately failed to apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to the threatened fundamental liberty interest of the mother in that case for this precise reason.
Instead, it applied a less stringent standard, having nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, so that it could leave room for the individual states, to concoct their own particular processes by which each could infringe or even, as in my case, terminate the liberty interests of fit parents, by averting the Due Process Clause. In other words, applying the wrong standard gave state legislatures the power to enact laws granting such “rights” to grandparents to intervene into divorce and custody disputes. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, this “standing” does not exist.
Because of the Troxel Court’s “instructions” as the state of Georgia refers to the case, Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587, 603-604 (2001), this state claimed that it had the power to sever my custodial relationship with my child, remove her from my home, terminate my legal rights to her and “award” “custody”, to her paternal grandparents- all without finding me unfit. Isn’t that something? After serving my country and vowing to die if need be, to defend the United States Constitution, my own rights were snatched right from under me. It said that it had the parens patriae power to do what it thought was “best” for my child. It had and has, no such power. Neither does any other state.
Here’s why.
Number 1., Washington, 521 U.S. at 721 says the state can’t do anything with a child without first proving that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest.
2. The state can’t achieve such interest without following the bifurcated steps established in Santosky, 455 U.S. at 745, 748, 760-761 .
3. Before we even get to any of all this, the state is explicitly prohibited from applying the best interest standard between a parent and a third party to begin with. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-304 (1993).
Nevertheless, there are parents across America whose constitutional rights to their children have been deprived by state action, under color of law. This has been a collective, nationwide violation, extending from the top of our judicial system, to the bottom. This is the state of America today.
But for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2000, I would not have been robbed of my right to continue to have the home that I had established for my child, or my right to continue to raise her, so long as I was fit.
I know that such willful deprivation is actionable under federal civil and criminal law against state officials. I also know that one must request relief from the very defendants and perpetrators who have violated him or her- a futile effort that I learned the hard way. My question is, what happens when the willful deprivation comes from the top?
***I am a paralegal. I am not a licensed attorney. Anything I’ve posted here or on this site, may not and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney. If you are in Cobb County, Georgia, good luck.
Who is going to have custody of children when the couple separate or divorce? This decision has to be made along with, how the children will be taken care of and the visitation, the how of each parent spending time with the children. Relationships cause connectedness and there are orders to abide by. There are two types of custody orders.
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, along with numerous short stories, poems and articles.
di·vorce – dəˈvôrs/ noun ~ the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body.
Preponderance of Evidence
via 
Who is going to have 
