PRESS RELEASE: Bill Scheidler, candidate for representative, district 26, position 1, states his platform | Corrupt Washington
This is the vicious cycle of corruption, which can be illustrated as follows.
Until VOTERS want an honest government where the rule of law prevails, taxpayers will be asked to pay for incompetence, corruption, over regulation, poor schools, substandard wages, dwindling jobs …; families will be destroyed under the guise and by ‘immunity bestowed upon child protective services, court ordered guardianship, probate and bankruptcy …; individuals will be abused by prosecutors, police and local government entities; and business will be regulated OUT OF BUSINESS.
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.
Mom and Dad are divorcing or have been divorced and are now sharing joint custody of their children in the same city in Texas. One parent receives a letter from the other parent’s attorney requesting that this parent be allowed to relocate the children to another state so he/she may take a better job position with another company! This is a dilemma no parent ever wants to experience! Child Custody cases involving interstate relocation jurisdiction issues cause much heartache and are costly legal battles.
What can a Parent do to protect themselves from children being relocated away from the non-moving parent to another state without her/his consent? How may this affect the parent’s relationship with the children?
The Texas Family Code 153.002Best Interestof Child states “The best interest of the childshall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”
The Texas Family code does not elaborate on the specific requirement for modification in the residency-restriction context, and there are no specific statutes governing residency restrictions or their removal for purposes of relocation. Texas Courts have no statutory standards to apply to this context.
The Texas Legislature has provided Texas Family Code 153.001, a basic framework on their public policy for all suits affecting the parent-child relationship:
The public policy of this state is to:
Assure the children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;
Provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child;
Encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.
How does The State of Texas treat an initial Child Custody determination?
Texas Family Code 152.201 of the UCCJEAstates, among other things, that a court may rule on custody issues if the Child:
*Has continually lived in that state for 6 months or longer and Texas was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the legal proceeding.
*Was living in the state before being wrongfully abducted elsewhere by a parent seeking custody in another state. One parent continues to live in Texas.
*Has an established relationship with people (family, relatives or teachers), ties, and attachments in the state
*Has been abandoned in an emergency: or is safe in the current state, but could be in danger of neglect or abuse in the home state
Relocation is a child custody situation which will turn on the individual facts of the specific case, so that each case is tried on its own merits.
Most child custody relocation cases tried in Texas follow a predictable course:
Allowing or not allowing the move.
Order of psychological evaluations or social studies of family members
Modification of custody and adjusting of child’s time spent with parents
Order opposing parties to provide all information on child’s addresses and telephone #
Help to Prevent Your Child’s Relocation in a Texas Court by Preparing Your Case!
Does the intended relocation interfere with the visitation rightsof the non- moving parent?
The effect on visitation and communication with the non-moving parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child
How will this move affect extended family relationships living in the child’s current location?
Are there bad faith motives evident in the relocating parent?
Can the non-moving parent relocate to be close to the child? If not, what type of separation hardship would the child have?
The relocating parent’s desire to accommodate a new job, spouse, or other criteria above the parent-child relationship. A Parent’s personal desire for move rather than need to move?
Is there a significant degree of economic, emotional or education enhancement for the relocating parent and child in this move?
Any violation of an order or prior notice of the intended move or a temporary restraining order
Are Special Needs/ Talents accommodated for the child in this move?
Fear of child and high cost of travel expenses for non-moving parent or child to visit each other to be able to continue parent- child relationship.
What other Paramount Concerns would affect the child concerning the relocation from the non-moving parent?
At the Nacol Law Firm PC, we represent many parents trying to prevent their child from relocating to another city or state and having to experience “A Long Distance Parental Relationship” brought on by a better job or new life experience of the relocating parent! We work at persuading courts to apply the specific, narrow exceptions to these general rules in order to have child custody cases heard in the most convenient forum in which the most qualifying, honest evidence is available; cases where the child’s home state or other basic questions are clarified, and cases where a parent has the right in close proximity with their child regardless of other less important factors.
in Entry #5, we talked about the Tipping Point and how the most powerful thing that we can all do to stamp out family legal abuse, even if you’re where I was a year ago, homeless and living with your kids in a car, is to spread, spread, spread the word and organize, organize, organize.
However, in the past, you may have been trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone about family rights when they say something truly asinine, such as:
“Well, someone has to pay for all those deadbeats.”
Say, what? What does something that happened in someone else’s family situation, in someone else’s life, have to do with me? Even if there are millions of authentic deadbeats out there (and, there’s not, but even if there were), that’s not a justification to indenture me and kidnap my children.
If you try to ask what “all those deadbeats” have to do with you and your children, the ignoramus will probably spout some pseudo-intellectual claptrap, replete with circumlocution, about how the status quo (i.e. family legal abuse) somehow works out to the betterment of society in the big scheme.
This is just one of the many ignorant things that you probably have encountered while trying to get through to people. Well, for all their pseudo-intellectual attempts at philosophical fencing, there are two things you have going for you that cannot be overcome with fancy words and a smug attitude, two things that absolutely grind any opposition to a halt. These two things simply cannot be argued with. They can, of course, be denied, but that’s different. They cannot be argued with.
One of these things was covered in Entries #3 and #4, Our Rights as Parents (Parts I and II). Our rights, of course, can not be debated. They are self-evident. Check out Entries #3 and #4 if you haven’t already.
What’s your testimony? It’s what you and your children have lived. It can’t be debated. YouLIVED it! It can be denied. You can be called a liar, but you can’t be debated. You LIVEDit!
So, when I tell people about living in a car, homeless, as a single parent family of four, in spite of having a full-time job because so-called “child support” did not leave us with enough money to pay rent. When I talk about crying as a grown man while I put my children’s beloved toys in a dumpster as we downsized our worldly belongings so that we could fit them into a car instead of an apartment, that’s my family’s testimony. We lived it.
When I talk about sitting on my then-5-year-old’s bed at 3:30am watching him try to sleep as he practically coughed up a lung, knowing that so-called “child support” had made my bank account negative so that I couldn’t even go to the store to get him cough syrup, it’s my testimony. All I could do was wonder if he was really serious enough to take to an emergency room, knowing that if I did, that would cause ANOTHER financial crisis.
No one can debate these things. They are testimony. They were lived, and that’s powerful!
I have even given my testimony to so-called “child support” workers over the phone when I have had occasion to have to communicate with them. Once, one of them even said she was “sorry my family had to go through that”. Yes! It really happened ladies and gentlemen. The lady actually said she was sorry. (But, I hope, since all those phone calls are recorded by her Orwellian masters, I hope she didn’t get in trouble for expressing some humanity.)
No one can argue with your testimony.
I know other people’s testimonies that include:
Being sent to prison simply for having Parkinson’s disease. (This man used to make six-figures, but his disease advanced until he was 100% disabled and unable to work. His case’s judge refused to lower the victim’s so-called “child support” so-called “obligation” by even one penny.)
Being told by Family (dis)-Services themselves that they don’t care if your children cannot go to school if they suspend your driver’s license.
Being told by Family (dis)-Services themselves that they don’t care if your children’s mother now has a live-in, violent felon boyfriend, because all they want is their money. Yes! They actually said this!
Being imprisoned without actually committing a crime in case after case after case after case.
Being homeless and sleeping in a truck (in spite of having full-time work) in the middle of the winter at below-freezing temperatures. At least, in my own case, it was seven of the warmer months of the year. The man I am referring to now was doing it in January!
So, when people want to debate, when they want to argue, don’t! Just give them your testimony.
Don’t take the bait to debate! Just give them your testimony. The only way they can fight your testimony is to accuse you of lying and that just makes THEM look bad.
So, remember, keep discussions about you and your children’s rights and your testimonies, and you can’t lose.
Ultimately, it will be the sheer weight of our combined testimonies as a persecuted underclass that will finally topple the Berlin Wall of Family Legal Abuse that has been erected by the courts between us and our children, between us and our life’s earnings.
I will traveling to Jefferson City, Missouri this summer to visit with state legislators and those august individuals need to see YOUR testimonies by the thousands! By the tens of thousands! They need to be buried in dump trucks of them! If you have even a little time, send your testimony to thebutterflydad@gmail.com.
You’re doing all of us and your children a favor when you 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!
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.
State lawmakers should pass much-needed reform of child-custody laws.
When she and her husband were divorcing, Jennifer Fink felt the way a lot of parents do. She was angry at her husband, thought she was the better parent, and wanted sole custody of their two sons. But the law in her state, Wisconsin, strongly encourages shared parenting of children when Mom and Daddivorce, and that’s what the judge ordered. Now, five years later, Fink, who founded BuildingBoys and is involved in recent efforts to create the White House Council on Boys and Men, has a message for everyone going through a child-custody case:
“I thank the Wisconsin court system for presuming that shared parenting is in the best interest of children, because without that presumption, I’m pretty sure I would have happily assumed the larger portion of parenting and relegated the boys’ dad to a lesser role. And that, I now know, would have been bad for my boys, bad for their dad and bad for me,” Fink revealed in a recent post, “Is Shared Parenting Best for Boys After Divorce?”
The overwhelming weight of scientific research demonstrates that children do better with two parents involved in their lives.
And yet Wisconsin is just one of two states that effectively encourage family judges to order equal — or almost equal — parenting time when parents divorce. Fortunately, many other states are considering following suit. This year, around 20 state legislatures are considering some form of equal-parenting legislation.
Indeed, one of the major factors behind our epidemic of fatherlessness is family courts that routinely consign one parent, usually the father, to mere visitor status in his children’s lives. Typically, non-custodial parents see their kids four days per month, plus a few hours one night per week, plus a few weeks during the summer. That usually works out to between 14 percent and 20 percent of the time.
As Fink so accurately says, that’s bad for kids. The overwhelming weight of scientific research demonstrates that children do better with two parents involved in their lives. Federal statistics show that kids with two parents are more likely to do well in school, stay out of jail, stay away from drugs and alcohol, avoid teen pregnancy, avoid depression, and, as adults, be gainfully employed than are their peers with a single parent.
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/
Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored ~ Opt-IN-USA
At best, if the targeted conduct is graphic and filmed and public outcry is intense, we get “police accountability” . . . an oxymoron given the DOJ’s notorious…
Calling on all Americans who do not want the ruling class through major media to keep unrest focused exclusively on blue collar cops while elite lawyers, powerful prosecutors, and judges operate with virtual impunity in this country. Please join us in PUMPING UP THE PROTEST! Kindly circulate this message and do whatever you lawfully can to affirm that no one in America should be above the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the country’s law enforcement and correction officials, private lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Thank you!
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 accountability coup d’etat in America.
We identified it as an international human rights issue. We learned that a potentially insurmountable obstacle to relief was America’s failure to ratify th……See More
This note is to encourage some very practical steps in mobilizing to address human rights violations through U.S. legal system abuse as part of Opt IN USA and its coalition partners. Please accept our apology if you receive this message via multiple communication channels. We want it to reach as many people as possible contending with U.S. legal system abuse and related judicial misconduct. Some d…… See More
Again, Opt IN USA attributes the ineffectiveness of America’s legal system in redressing entrenched legal system abuse to a synergy of:quiescent lawyers and judges, subdued by the prospect of retaliatory professional discipline;ineffective federal agencies such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Special Counsel;…See More
Here are four of the most critical flaws of the current child-support system.
The system is outdated.
The child-support system was originally a bipartisan policy reform designed to serve divorced parents who were steadily employed. But the system was established nearly 40 years ago, and is based on outdated stereotypes that viewed Mom as a housewife and Dad as the sole breadwinner.
29 percent of families in the system live below the federal poverty line. Many fathers sincerely want to do right by their children, but simply don’t have the means to do so. That becomes a very slippery slope for a lot of dads.
When unpaid child-support payments accumulate, this often snowballs into another issue: parental alienation. Research has shown that men with outstanding child-support debts tend to be less involved in their children’s lives. Some even find themselves incarcerated over unpaid payments.
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.
Civil Rights in Family Law Florida 