[AKidsRight.Org] US Supreme Court says NO to Hearsay / Your Messages & FEEDBACK

webmaster@akidsright.org

This is a message from the AKidsRight.Org mailing list.  Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.
=======================================
Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on:

1. Your Messages - why the system needs to change.
2. Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings/NOT! - new ruling by US Supreme Court.
3. Your FEEDBACK - how does the system change? What to do?

This message is long, but a lot on the same themes.  "Child abuse" was
common in some of your messages to us and many have been hurt by a
system that makes it too EASY for government to "step in".  In a
refreshing 'common sense' decision, a US Supreme Court ruling will help
parents facing criminal charges by making sure you get to confront your
accuser in court (what an amazing idea!).

We also include FEEDBACK from other parents on "what to do?"  How does a
loving parent respond to terrible injustice?

1. Your Messages - why the system needs to change.
-------------------------------------------------

--- Sherry <SherryTrent62@aol.com>

> My 16 month old daughter drowned in our backyard pool. I had left her
> just five minutes before in the very next room playing with the two
> other children while I finished dinner. She got out with my five year
> old and in our pool. CPS has been sooo unfair and illegal with their
> practices during this whole mess. The drowning happened on August 28,
> 2003. All of my children were removed from the home. I have just been
> allowed back in April. Oh how the story is THICK! I would like to
> have justice and help others to know their rights!

I am sorry to hear about the misery you are going through. I can't
imagine the heartache.  It sounds as if CPS is adding torture to
misery. I'll forward your letter to someone who may have information for
you - Kevin

> I am not sure what I can do but being falsely accused this year and
> trying to live through this hell, on top of losing our 16 month old
> daughter to an ACCIDENTIAL backyard swimming pool accident, I am
> sooooo motivated to do SOMETHING. I wish someone could tell me
> something I could do to make a difference!!!!!

VERY sorry to hear what happened with your daughter!  If you wish you are
welcome to post your story to our Hall of Shame page,
http://www.AKIdsRight.Org/shame.htm -- so other people can see the kind
of crazy stuff that goes on.

There is a LOT you can do.  Your welcome to review our web site.  The
goals and methods.  Then get some friends and go in and visit the local
office of your Members of Congress and tell them your rights to be a
parent to your own children were violated.  We have examples of how to
do it at: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/legislative.htm

If you want to get more people involved in your local area and have a
meeting, let us know, and we can announce it - John

--- Grandma <pbj@citlink.net>

> My son was awarded custody of his daughter when she was 11/2 yrs old.He
> proved himself the better parent and it was pretty simple.

> At the time he lived in Wa. state. He planned to move to Arizona but the
> judge asked him to reconsider and maybe take a job in Orgon, just over the
> border, so mom could see the child on weekends.He agreed to this, found
> employment and things were ok for a while.

> Just weeks before my son and his x were to go back to court to determine
> the child support his x would have to pay she took the child for a "vacation".
> On the day she was to return her she didn't show up but the police did. They
> said the mom accused him of sexually abusing the child and the nightmare
> began.

> My son took a polygraph which the police said he failed and later found out
> he didn't. He went to court and the judge didn't even know anything about
> what had happened but told him he couldn't see the child until things were
> "straightened out" and apologized for any inconvenience!!

> It took a year of jumping through hoops and humiliating tests to prove his
> innocence but he did.His x wife's atty. made sure it took this long and
> through the whole year he was not allowed to see his child or even talk to her.

> Not to mention what the child went through. The mother put her through a
> physical exam full well knowing that nothing had happened.

> In the end the custody was given to the mother because she had been with
> her the year that my son was proving his innocence. Money, that's what it was.
> Mom wanted money and didn't want to pay support to dad.She was allowed to
> move to Montana so my son moved here to AZ. to be with family. He has visitation
> which he pays for all the transportation plus child support and buys all the
> clothes because mom sends her in rags.The child wants to be with her dad but
> is very afraid and intimidated by mom.

> We found out that the child comes home from school every day to an empty
> house, she is only 7 yrs. old. Mom also puts her to bed at night and goes out
> on "dates" with whichever boyfriend she has at the time and leaves her alone.

> I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. We need help and are
> willing to help whoever we can.

> Thanks for listening.
> A loving grandmother.

I truly feel   your pain, and I want to start by saying thank you for being
so supportive for your son and grand daughter. I can tell you, from first hand
experience, how important that is.

The system is absolutely flawed. One of the reasons for this is that nobody
gets involved until it happens to them. Nobody believes that fathers are at an
incredible disadvantage until they have their own son, brother, self involved
in the heartbreak of the family legal system. Fathers have almost no chance of
justice. Even the very few that win custody, such as your son, end up losing
in the end, because the system is totally biased in favor of mothers. This
type of prejudice was unacceptable when it came to slavery, when it came to the
holocaust; there is no reason why it should be acceptable now.

By the way, when my former spouse accused me of having an affair, I also was
subjected to the travesty of a lie detector test. The first results said I was
lying. After the damage had already been done, I went to a much more
reputable (if that word can be applied to this particular profession) lie detector
company. (This company is the ones used by the FBI in cases such as the Columbine
School case) When the owner of the company tested me then looked at the
results of the first test, he immediately called the owner of the first lie
detector company and said the testing was totally flawed and listed off numerous
reasons. Of course, he found the truth, that I was innocent.

Anyway, thanks again for supporting your son and thank you for contacting
AKIDSRIGHT.ORG.
Kevin (contact@AKidsRight.Org)

2. Hearsay inadmissible in Criminal Proceedings - ruling by US Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From the US Supreme Court web site:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/08mar20041045/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-9410.pdf

We have included the summary of the decision below. The full opinion of the Court
can be found at the link above (total of 43 pages).

                       OCTOBER TERM, 2003

                    CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON

     CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 02-9410.

   Argued November 10, 2003--Decided March 8, 2004

   Petitioner was tried for assault and attempted murder. The State
   sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner's wife
   Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence that the
   stabbing was not in self-defense.  Sylvia did not testify at trial
   because of Washington's marital privilege. Petitioner argued that
   admitting the evidence would violate his Sixth Amendment right to be
   "confronted with the witnesses against him."  Under Ohio v. Roberts,
   448 U. S. 56, that right does not bar admission of an unavailable
   witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement
   bears "adequate `indicia of reliability,' " a test met when the
   evidence either falls within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or
   bears "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."  Id., at
   66. The trial court admitted the statement on the latter ground. The
   State Supreme Court upheld the conviction, deeming the statement
   reliable because it was nearly identical to, i.e., interlocked with,
   petitioner's own statement to the police, in that both were ambiguous
   as to whether the victim had drawn a weapon before petitioner
   assaulted him.

   Held: The State's use of Sylvia's statement violated the
   Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are at
   issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy
   constitutional demands is confrontation. Pp. 5-33.

   (a) The Confrontation Clause's text does not alone resolve this case,
   so this Court turns to the Clause's historical background.  That
   history supports two principles. First, the principal evil at which
   the Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure,
   particularly the use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the
   accused. The Clause's primary object is testimonial hearsay, and
   interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that
   class. Second, the Framers would not have allowed admission of
   statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was
   unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity
   for cross-examination. English authorities and early state cases
   indicate that this was the common law at the time of the
   founding. And the "right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses
   against him," Amdt.  6, is most naturally read as a reference to the
   common-law right of confrontation, admitting only those exceptions
   established at the time of the founding. See Mattox v. United States,
   156 U. S. 237, 243. Pp. 5-21.

   (b) This Court's decisions have generally remained faithful to the
   Confrontation Clause's original meaning. See, e.g., Mattox,
   supra. Pp. 21-23.

   (c) However, the same cannot be said of the rationales of this
   Court's more recent decisions. See Roberts, supra, at 66. The Roberts
   test departs from historical principles because it admits statements
   consisting of ex parte testimony upon a mere reliability
   finding. Pp. 24-25.

   (d) The Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in
   a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.
   Roberts allows a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary
   process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability, thus
   replacing the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing
   reliability with a wholly foreign one. Pp. 25-27.

   (e) Roberts' framework is unpredictable. Whether a statement is
   deemed reliable depends on which factors a judge considers and how
   much weight he accords each of them. However, the unpardonable vice
   of the Roberts test is its demonstrated capacity to admit core
   testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to
   exclude. Pp. 27-30. (f) The instant case is a self-contained
   demonstration of Roberts' unpredictable and inconsistent
   application. It also reveals Roberts' failure to interpret the
   Constitution in a way that secures its intended constraint on
   judicial discretion.

   The Constitution prescribes the procedure for determining the
   reliability of testimony in criminal trials, and this Court, no less
   than the state courts, lacks authority to replace it with one of its
   own devising. Pp. 30-32.

   147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P. 3d 656, reversed and remanded.

   SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
   KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
   REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
   which O'CONNOR, J., joined.

From: Mary Jo Marceau-Hawthorne <mmarceauhawthorne@yahoo.com>

> Reporter Robin Franzen: 503-221-8133; robinfranzen@news.oregonian.com

> Copyright 2004 Oregon Live. All Rights Reserved.

> Ruling on hearsay evidence guts cases (3/11/04)

> Prosecuting abuse and domestic violence will be harder after the
> Supreme Court's affirmation of the right to face an accuser

> One of the most defense-friendly U.S. Supreme Court decisions in
> years, underscoring the right to cross-examine witnesses, could
> severely thwart the ability of prosecutors to try certain sensitive
> cases of domestic abuse and child abuse.

> Legal authorities were scrambling to decide the extent of Monday's
> ruling but said Wednesday that it could gut prosecution of cases in
> which victims often refuse to testify at trial -- domestic violence
> being a prime example -- and limit the use of co-defendants'
> statements in the prosecution of other cases.

> The 9-0 opinion potentially disallows hearsay evidence that courts had
> increasingly allowed as exceptions during the past 25 years and boldly
> reinforces a defendant's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth
> Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

> "This decision will have a significant impact on criminal prosecution,
> no doubt," said Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon attorney
> general's office, which convened a meeting Wednesday to discuss the
> ruling's effect.

> Dana Forman, a criminal defense lawyer, considers the decision in
> Crawford v. Washington to be the most important ruling from the
> Supreme Court since the 1966 Miranda decision in terms of preserving
> constitutional rights for criminal defendants.

> "I was blown away by the scope of the thing," she said.

> The decision overturned an assault conviction against Michael Crawford
> of Olympia, who stabbed a man he thought had tried to rape his
> wife. Crawford claimed self-defense, arguing the victim was going for
> a weapon when he was stabbed.

> His wife, Sylvia, who was present at the time of the incident, did not
> testify at her husband's trial, invoking marital privilege. However, a
> judge said the prosecution could use her taped statement to police
> indicating that there was no weapon.

> The Supreme Court ruled that the wife's statement to police was not
> admissible because the defense did not have an opportunity to
> cross-examine her.

> In overturning the Washington Supreme Court on the Crawford case, the
> U.S. Supreme Court also abandoned its own 1980 ruling, Ohio
> v. Roberts, that allowed a hearsay witness statement if a judge found
> it trustworthy.

> Inadequate under Sixth Amendment

> Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote Monday's opinion, said that wouldn't
> have been enough for the framers of the Constitution.

> "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable
> is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously
> guilty," Scalia wrote. "This is not what the Sixth Amendment
> prescribes."

> Previously, Oregon prosecutors handling domestic violence and child
> abuse cases did not have an absolute obligation to produce a witness
> at trial, Neely said. Instead, they could rely on statements those
> witnesses made to police officers if they were found to be reliable.
> Typically, in domestic violence cases, those statements had to be made
> within 24 hours of the incident.

> "Now, in those instances, (prosecutors) will not be able to rely on
> the officer," he said. "They'll be required to produce a witness."

> It was unclear Wednesday whether the Supreme Court's ruling would be
> retroactive. Prosecutors certainly hope not. But they are concerned.

> "We had a situation where the law was pretty settled that this was
> admissible," said Norm Frink, chief deputy district attorney for
> Multnomah County. "Now, I'm sure every sex abuser in the penitentiary
> is probably thinking they are going to get out."

> Oregon case already affected - Already, the Supreme Court ruling has
> caused an Oregon criminal case to be dismissed.

> When a domestic assault trial began Monday morning without the
> victim's cooperation, a Multnomah County judge ruled that hearsay
> statements against the defendant were admissible. But that afternoon,
> after the high court's ruling, Forman, who works for Multnomah
> Defenders Inc., successfully asked the judge to exclude the
> statement. The case was dismissed.

> The only way it can be reinstated, Forman said, is if the district
> attorney compels the victim to testify by issuing an arrest warrant.

> Although John Bradley, special counsel for the Multnomah County
> district attorney's office, agreed the decision will make prosecutors'
> jobs harder, he cautioned that it might not be as broad as it appears
> on first reading.

> Bradley said the opinion doesn't affect many types of evidence
> typically admitted at trial, including medical reports or business
> records. He also said he expected it would take years of litigation to
> sort out exactly what type of evidence falls under Monday's ruling.

> Defense lawyer Larry Matasar said he thought the ruling would, perhaps
> most importantly, prevent innocent people from being convicted.

> "If you believe in the judicial system and the right of confrontation,
> it's one of the bedrock principles," he said.

> Although the ruling was unanimous, Chief Justice William Rehnquist
> dissented from overturning the court's 1980 decision that allowed some
> hearsay evidence. He said it was crucial to deal with the unresolved
> questions raised by the new ruling quickly.

> "Thousands of federal prosecutors and the tens of thousands of state
> prosecutors need answers," he wrote. "They need them now, not months
> or years from now. . . . The parties should not be left in the dark in
> this manner."

> News researcher Kathleen Blythe contributed to this report.

3. Your FEEDBACK - how does the system change? What to do?
----------------------------------------------------------

--- Kathy Doras <Orbit38@aol.com>

> Thank you for your message, and I would love to join you if I could
> but right now I can't. Please don't think I am one of those who talk
> with no action because I am far from that. You see what I didn't tell
> you was that at after 1 of our court appearances I was so upset that I
> called the mother and told her that I was calling the newspapers and
> telling the world the truth about her and her family and the justice
> system and that you haven't seen nothing until you have seen the wrath
> of Kathy. with that I was arrested 2 days later first they said for
> assault, they then changed it to harassment. My lawyer got them to
> drop the charge but under a condition that for 6 months I was to be in
> no trouble and a order of protection was placed. I would do it all
> over again if I had to, but right now I can't. I just had a big fight
> with the team at where my son is because they say he is lying, he
> might be confused but lying is out. We told them and him what is the
> point in lying when we now know everything he has done, none of this
> makes sense.

> Because of what I did and who this judge is right now my son needs me
> and I can't jeopardize him away from me any longer. I did tell these
> that It may not be today, it might not be tomorrow it could be next
> year , I do vow that this system needs to change and I will do
> something it about it mark my word.

> If there is any other way I can help now please let me know, but I hop
> you can understand why I can't do anything that will jeopardize my
> son's return home to me. Once I know he is home safe with me and no
> one can harm him, then I can sacrifice anything. I have always said
> from the beginning if its not to get my son out then what I do let it
> help another child.

Yes, I can understand and there is no need to explain.  At times I can't
believe what I am doing myself!  I don't think I would get that involved
helping someone else.

--- David Johnson <dbjohns@rocketmail.com>

> John, thank you for this message.  I am going through a rough time
> right now as the mother of my 11-year old son tries to play the
> keepaway game with me.  She herself acknowledged once in front of a
> mediator that she understands that a more balanced shared parenting
> situation would work better for our son, yet she continues to act as
> an obstacle to what is right for him by hiring another attorney and
> asking to decrease my time.  And the keepaway game does occasionally
> bring me to think about those crazy actions that parents will take in
> order to be with their child. But I guess then you wonder - are you
> working in your Childs best interests, or are you so caught up in the
> emotional pain that you're going through that you don't see the future
> pain that you will also cause to your child by your actions?

> I agree with you when you say that there needs to be a change to the
> entire system that allows this type of imbalance to continue.  I hope
> to some day make it out to New York to help out in some way, or to
> take more action out here in Colorado.  If there is anything that you
> know of that I can do on a local level, let me know.

--- Jeff Whyte <jeffwhyte@shaw.ca>

> I just wanted you to know that your words were inspiration,
> encouragement and comfort to me.  I'm also glad that you shared your
> email with the F.A.C.T.S. group.  Though I see that your email didn't
> receive much response from the group - but I have faith and comfort
> that your words were heard and that the seed has been planted.  I hope
> and pray that the men and woman who read your post can take what you
> wrote and from that, take control of their situation and be inspired
> to take the action required for their situation and the issues in
> general and constructively, with wisdom, fight the battle with
> strength and integrity.

--- "Timothy Himes" <baldurkhan@hotmail.com>

> I have come to a decision after having a rather long discussion with
> John Murtari through e-mail. I am going to include that discussion
> below for those of you who may be interested in reading this...

> You see, i went ahead and analyzed the living hell out of myself and I
> analyzed my motives and my reasoning. I questioned everything that i
> believed, and i found that i had forsaken a number of truths that i
> grew up with each and everyday.

> The "Truth" Is the key. The fact is that it is not one or twenty, or a
> hundred people who will be able to change the laws that govern us and
> govern our children. The sad fact of reality is that one vote either
> for or against any proposed or existing law makes absolutely no
> difference in today's world. Not in a world where millions of people
> are affected each and everyday.

> I sad something the other day to someone, and what i said surprised
> me. I told them "It takes a jury to set someone free, or impression
> them, but it takes only a thousand viewers to get someone killed
> whether they are innocent or not."

> I constantly hear about "public awareness" and it turns my stomach. But the
> truth is that through public awareness is how things will get changed and
> without violence. Have you ever noticed however that if you save a child you
> might become a local hero? But if you kill a child you become a national
> villain? Everyone is drawn to Tv and the big screen. A large number of
> people are drawn to books.

> I have decided to write a book. I will write about fact and about
> fiction but i will tell my story in it. i will write a book for my
> daughter and hope that one day she will read it because it is about
> her story as well. I have a plot, i have a theme, and i have a large
> number of characters who will play various roles within the book. I do
> not know how long it will take, i do not know if or when it will be
> finished or even if or when it will ever get published. But i have
> chosen to write a book because they say that the pen is truly mightier
> than the sword. I want to put this to the test.

> Excerpt from "Wrongfully Named" a novel in the works. Copyright 2004 Timothy
> J. Himes.

> "Love, true love such as the love for ones family, the love
> for ones mate, or the love for one's child, is more pain that you ever
> thought you could endure, and more happiness than you ever thought possible.
>  I lost my daughter to a woman that I was once deeply in love with. In
> truth, I was used and then discarded. When I went to court seeking justice,
> seeking legal rights to my flesh and blood, I was denied. They said that for
> the child's welfare and the sake of the family unit, I would have no rights.
> Were I to pursue this, the presumed parents could take legal action against
> me.
>  For one year I went through an emotional hell the likes of which I had
> never known. My daughter was the one thing in all this rotten world that
> made me feel alive. Though I have yet to meet her, my love for her will
> never change.
>  Traditionally, when a child is born into this world, they bear the father's
> last name. It is a mark that bears with it the ties of blood and ancestry.
>  My child, my daughter was Wrongfully Named."

> I will write this book about the children that are affected by the
> laws that we have today. The story will take place in 2021, and it
> will begin with a meeting between a nervous man in his forties and a
> young woman in her young adulthood. He will give her a white covered
> book and a manila envelope.  The book will be a half documentary,
> half journal and inside the envelope will be copies of all paperwork
> he has relating to a court case he filed nearly two decades
> before. That young woman will come to know that the man she has always
> called father, never was her true father and that her mother lied to
> her for many years.

> She will be faced with a truth that was unexpected. And when she
> discovers that the man who gave her the envelope is her true father,
> what will she do? Except by this time, it may not matter because that
> man died two days after giving her the information. She had a father
> that loved her all her life, and they never got the chance to even
> know each other.

> That is the premise for the story, but it will also involve a young man
> about her age as well.

> I would like any an all feedback that anyone is willing to give. I
> intend to tell a true story, through a work of fiction. I will make it
> dramatic and tragic. I will make it something to remember and to be
> talked about by anyone who reads it. I am still working out the exact
> plot oints and individual scenes.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.  You are a terrific
write and can really put those words together and I think if anyone can
succeed in writing such a book, you can.  You have really felt the
pain.... although I don't think the two are inter-related, I do have to
say I disagree with some of your thoughts on the power of "one" person.

History is absolutely full of the "power of one person" to change events
and to either protect or destroy rights.  You make it sound so difficult
when all it requires is confidence. Focusing on the good, read some of
the books in our biography on NonViolent Action,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/bibliogr.htm -- King, Gandhi, Francis of
Assisi, Jesus of Nazareth -- they all started as one.

To be honest, I think you need to say it is difficult for me to find the
personal Faith and Confidence that my starting an action as ONE person
will make a difference.  That the personal sacrifices that involves will
make a difference.  Nothing wrong with that, it is quite true (if you
talk about your action change history).  That is why so few people do
it.

But it is also true that when you try and give it all, you transform
yourself, and you know what you did and why.  Someday you will meet your
adult daughter, and maybe you will tell her how you wrote a book and
succeeded and it became a best seller and then a movie and influenced
laws!!!!!  -OR- you could tell her you took NonViolent Action by
yourself and willing gave up your freedom and spent time in jail to call
attention to the need for change.  But no one listened, no one cared
after it was done...and it was too hard for you alone, and you had to
stop.... but you tried.

They both sound good, and while the first one is doubtful, the second
one is a SURE thing.  It is within your grasp.

--- Teri <allkdathrt@yahoo.com>

> I love your newsletter, usually, and I support what you are doing.
> That said, I find it in very poor taste that you posted Caren's
> anti-homosexual comments.  Maybe you should keep the commentary that
> people add to yourself, and just post their event info.  Either that,
> or screen it better.

Thanks for the message.  Your message made me think a bit and what is in
a LOT of our messages.  Fathers saying Mom's don't have a right to be an
equal parent.  Mom's saying Dad's don't have a right to be an equal
parent.  Talk about disgusting things to say, but we are used to it?
Isn't it funny how accepting we have become about accepting such a deep
indignity?  You only "trigger" on the gay remarks?

If we 'screen it better' -- you wouldn't get much?  Although your
message show tremendous insensitivity and ignorance of the pain of
parents -- we may run it anyway!

> Are you saying that one injustice makes the others okay?  Or that one
> prejudice makes the others okay?  I guess I expected you, as owner of
> the newsletter, to be above all of that.  I was hoping that you were
> not prejudice, but instead I found your reply to me more offensive
> than Caren's original letter.

> I never said that I favor supporting gay rights over parents' rights.
> You assumed that.  I have been involved in fathers' rights and equal
> custody rights for over a year.

> What you don't seem to understand is that gays and lesbians are
> parents too.  In my single parent group which has over 1700 members
> 12% are gay, lesbian or bisexual.  That is why Caren's comment
> triggered a response from me.

---  Joe@nowhere.com

> something you can link to and recruit members from:
> http://fathersrights.meetup.com/members/

> Regards,
> MB

Thanks for the message. Very interesting idea on how to get people
together.

--- Denise Pace <Rtsfts@aol.com>

> I was just reading your letter to Senator Clinton - dated November 2003 and
> was very touched by what I read.

> I have two children with my ex-husband (10 & 8) - we separated when
> they were 2 & 4.  Our relationship is friendly and our arrangement is
> flexible.  We live one mile apart.

> I have physical custody and according to our divorce decree, he is
> scheduled to have the kids two nights during the week for dinner and
> every other weekend.

> My children mean the world to me - their father feels the same way -
> he is welcome to see the children whenever he wants to and have worked
> out a great arrangement, where the kids feel like they have TWO
> parents raising them.

> I am sorry there are so many people (men mostly) that have to go
> through the drama they do to be able to see their children.  I don't
> get it.  How selfish - the children are hurt - what good does that do?
> Thankfully he pays child support religiously.  We are very lucky.

> I have a friend who is in jail right now for not paying child support
> as required by the court... what I don't understand is that he had a
> great paying job that they took him from - lost his job - his place to
> live - the chances of him getting a better job are slim to none and
> the kids get nothing when he's in jail.... I don't get it.

VERY nice to hear your story and glad to see your kids have both of you.
Right now all it takes is ONE parent and there is a disaster.
Hopefully, we will soon recognize both parents have a right to be equal
parents and we learn to accept that as the way it is -- nothing to fight
about.

--- w w <dadsareforever@yahoo.com>

> Reading the K R newsletter I noticed that when J Matura talks of his
> jail time he states what his actions were and not his crime, but when
> he talks of L. Jaks jail time he talks of more punishment, not that he
> was having an unauthorized vacation out of the country with his
> son. What good is done by punishing him more, that would likely come
> from a religious illusion and not logic. L J has been punished for the
> last 7 years, why not call for punishment for the mother and step
> parent for stealing the child in the first place, it could be said
> that LJ just took him back.

> I would never do what he did because I know I would never see my child
> again, even though it may be false hope that makes me think that I can
> make things right in my situation.

> Not only do we have to correct the system, but we have to go up
> against all the self-righteous step parents, and that is close to 50%
> of the population who get the ncp children and their money .

Thanks for the message and we'll share it with others.  I feel bad about
what happened to Lowell, but it is all just crazy. Lowell hurt because
the system allowed his spouse to "steal" their child.  Lowell then
"steals" the child, and I'm sure the other parent was hurting.  It's
just a mess.

The system needs to change like you say, but what are you willing to
sacrifice to make that happen? Lowell could have made a powerful
statement by voluntarily sacrificing his freedom in a NonViolent Action
(maybe outside the office of an elected official who could change the
laws and always ignore us?).  Instead, he is still going to jail, and
for a lot longer, and what can anyone say.  It is just unfortunate..

--- "Spike" <spikeonline@access995.com>

> This situation can be just as abusive as sole custody for the
> mother. The truth is as a matter of law it is not an issue of the
> "best" parent. A parent must only be fit and after that as a matter of
> law no competition is to occur. "best interest" can only be applied if
> a parent has lost their rights. At this point the state can determine
> "best interest". If neither parent has lost their rights it is
> presumed that fit parents know what is in the "best interest" of their
> children. Shared custody is a Constitutional issue based on equal
> treatment under the law.

> This does not just make good sense it is a matter of law. The equal
> treatment situation and the government not being empowered to step in
> is exactly the same as the situation with people that had to pay for
> their children's education after they we 18. The courts ruled that non
> divorced parents could not be mandated to pay for their children's
> education so divorced ones could not either. To rule on "best
> interest" is the same.  The court can't come into the home of non
> divorced parents and rule on "best interest' so they can't do it with
> divorced ones either. Unless rights have been terminated with either
> group.  Individual custody can't be a Constitutional issue as the
> Constitution can't favor one side but it can treat both sides equally
> ie Shared custody. As a matter of fact this is and has been the
> law. Shared custody has been the law since the Civil Rights Act. There
> is even a case in Pa. Spriggs vs. Carson The courts just don't abide
> by it.

> If you would consider your right to a trial by jury in these criminal
> contempts you could assert and show as a matter of law your
> Constitutionally protected rights to do most of the things you are
> doing. If you back them down in this manner the entire color of this
> would change. You are not taking advantage of the things that empower
> you. In my view you are in real danger of being perceived as someone
> not stable. If the courts mandate a psyc evaluation they will direct
> the outcome of this and may even say you are a danger to yourself or
> others. I understand that is not true however, that doesn't matter as
> perception can and often does replace truth.  You need to defeat them
> in court and this can only happen in front of a jury. In my opinion.

> Virtually everything you are asking for, ie parents must be found
> guilty in a court of law and the right to nurture and raise their
> children ect is now and has been the law of the land. I have been in
> study of these things for the past 6 years. The problem is not that
> the laws don't exist, the problem is they don't follow the
> laws. Sen. Clinton or anyone else can introduce all the legislation
> they choose and without enforcement power (which they don't have) it
> won't happen because the judges won't do it. It is difficult for me to
> watch what is happening to you as you are truly a very special
> person but Sen Clinton can't help if she wanted too.  Regards, Spike

--- David Millar <dwmillar@shaw.ca>

> The quote below (who's the MP?) is very telling.  I think it's the
> heart of the problem.  It doesn't matter whether it's the judge
> sucking up to the politician or vice versa, the fact is that the judge
> is politicized going in.  I'm pedaling as fast as I can.

> Neither you nor I are alone in the recognition of the problem.

> "That means there needs to be some work done to change the attitudes
> in the general public first.  Education so to speak.  My own MP sat
> and listened politely, then asked who the judge was.  When I told her,
> her response was " Oh, Ray" and I knew in that instant there was no
> help for me in her office."

                                       Webmaster
____________________________________________________________________
Member                                 AKidsRight.Org
"A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"        http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

=======================================
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter