From: AKidsRight.Org Webmaster (webmaster@AKidsRight.org)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2006 - 20:00:24 EDT
Good People & People of Faith,
This message has info on:
1. What do we stand for - your FEEDBACK
2. New Jersey Appellate Decision - Bonding does not matter?
3. Equal Parenting Rally - Columbus, Ohio, June 16
4. Washington Family Law Reform Conference - Sept 15-16
5. Words from Canada's Batman - great parade!
6. Change the name of Fathers-4-Justice?
1. What do we stand for - your FEEDBACK
---------------------------------------
We happened to receive a very good series of messages that touch
on what our goals are. We have a published goal at the
web site: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
There ought to be a "significant barrier" the system has to cross
before they can interfere with our family life.
We are not looking for MORE laws, but Civil Rights protection. That
you and your spouse are both considered Fit & Equal parents (equal in
terms of both physical and legal custody). If anyone (a spouse,
relative, social services) wishes to challenge that, you have:
1) The right to counsel.
2) The right to be presumed a fit parent, innocent, and deserving of
an equal relationship with your kids.
3) The right to protection of a criminal jury. The "state" needs to
prove you were a demonstrated serious and intentional threat to your
child's safety.
Sound nice? But what does it mean in reality? None of the folks
below has responded yet to my reply -- what would you say?
--- Juls <Jp08055newj@aol.com>
> ... So the goals of your group are to attempt to unite NCP of both
> Dad's and Mom's to have the "rights" to see/parent their kids more?
What you say is correct, but a bit more. The goal is to preserve your
right to be considered a Fit & Equal parent unless convicted by a
criminal jury of being a demonstrated serious threat to your kids.
This also includes helping protect families threatened by "social
services" and child abuse allegations.
Also, thanks for sending a copy of the Appellate decision(below). I
feel bad for the whole family and little Curtis (who needs
professional counseling at the age of 7?). These should have been
equal parents, with equal time. Neither was a demonstrated serious
threat to the safety of their child (they just don't get along -- and
our present system encourage disputes). If you chose to move away --
that is your free choice, but that doesn't mean the child moves away
from the other parent, they haven't done anything wrong. We don't
punish the parent moving away, try to give them extra time in the
summer and vacations. But the child doesn't change schools.
The whole idea that a Court decides 'what best' for your kid is
objectionable and denigrating to fit parents.
What do you think? These thoughts pretty much say what we have in our
Family Rights Act, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
--- Lorie Morphis <Lorie.Morphis@clearwire.net>
> Please acknowledge a child's need for the breastfeeding mother.
> Please harmonize "equal time" and "shared parenting" with an
> infant's need to feed on demand, and naturally wean at his/her own
> pace (2-3 years in many cases).
I was not breast fed, but my son Domenic was and I think it was one of
the greatest things to see. To be able to feed a human life from your
own body. I told my former spouse it made me wish I had breasts as I
would see how content Dom was nursing.
I'm not sure I agree with you though? You can see what the goal and
the great 'right' we wish to protect, at
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
That we all have a right to be Fit & Equal parents with our kids
unless we are convicted by a criminal jury of being a demonstrated
serious threat to their safety. Good, fair, and poor parents are all
equal -- even if you don't always do what is best for your kid? That
is a starting point -- what do you think? I'd be interested in
sharing your thoughts with the group. A child has a huge 'right' to
equal contact with both parents -- but not necessarily for the best
parents?
I will share your reply with the group, you bring up a good topic. I
think example scenarios sometimes help. Suppose a child is born to a
couple in a good marriage. During the pregnancy they even planned on
breast feeding. Let us say for some reason, either or both of them
want 'out' shortly after the child is born, they have new 'partners'.
Within weeks the breast feeding mother has a problem that precludes
further breast feeding of the child. Let us also assume the Father has
a relationship with a mother who is also nursing, and is capable of
nursing another child? Would we give the child to them? What if they
had to move away because of work? This may seem strange, but in many
countries they have the concept of a 'wet nurse' who can nurse any
child? My mother's family in Italy used one for some of her
brother's and sisters?
The key point is, I don't disagree that breast feeding is a great
thing. Teaching your children a healthy life style, and living one
yourself is also a great thing. Being involved with your kid in
school is also important -- but if we say you have a fundamental right
to be an equal parent, they are secondary. I did not grow up in an
'optimal' home. There were a lot of things my folks could have done
better -- they were both simply educated Italian immigrants -- but
they loved me in their own way?
... I'd like to hear your perspective. I think a good dialog will help
me and others also better understand. I just ask that before raising
new issues, please be responsive to the questions above.
--- Amanda Keller <mandolinatou@yahoo.com>
> I wish that parents would realize that maybe they do not have rights
> persay to children. Children should be respected as adults but
> treated with respect to their vulnerabilities. We have these crazy
> parents thinking they have rights to their children, no matter what.
> Your children have rights to be parented well because they will live
> longer than their parents and they are are developmentally
> vulnerable.
Not sure of the context for the above? We all things we would 'like'
to see happen for kids, including those of others. What 'rights' do
you think children have all to their own? Certainly in our group we
name we say a basic 'right' of kids is to have TWO parents involved in
their lives. Not so sure that they get the 'best' parent, or even a
good or average parent? Would you prefer the better parent?
> Abuse can leave a life worth of health problems. My parents had
> their rights removed....and thank god, one slept while the other
> tortured me. Even though my mother gave birth to me she did not
> have rights to me...because her "rights" to own me impeded on my
> "right" to health and my right to not be treated ill.
Sorry to hear what happened. I'm not sure if the issue is a 'right to
you' -- if a parent is found guilty of being a demonstrated serious
threat to the safety of their kids (as in your case) -- they should be
punished/jailed and separated. They have violated a duty of their
behavior to you -- I'm not quite sure I would word is as: your 'right'
to be healthy? What about parents that smoke in the house? They
don't mean to harm their kids, maybe that can't kick the habit -- do
we take the kids?
> I just wish more people were involved to change the foster care
> system. And demand more rights for the children residing in the
> foster care system and more funding. My life was not well cared for
> in the system but it was still better than outside of it. Stop
> being crazy right wing god given right to my children
> advocates....and recognize as john says the child's right to be
> treated properly. Fight for our children and good parents will win
> out.
Once kid's are separated from parents, I agree with you, the foster
care system needs to be monitored. This is John, I do believe we have
a God given right to be considered Fit & Equal parents to our own
children. Society should not interfere unless one of the parent's
violates their duty by being a serious threat to the safety of their
kids. No child should be 'tortured' at home.
Hopefully, when we remove the focus from interfering on 'what is best'
-- more time can be spent on investigating and prosecuting real abuse.
I think the people in the group will benefit from your thoughts.
Please check our goals, I welcome your feedback.
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
--- LISA WRIGHT <littlemister9401@sbcglobal.net>
> My x-husband and I just loss a case in northern CA on May 17,
> 2006. Court agrees that grandma should have visitation against
> strong objection of both parents. Because we are divorced the CA law
> states Grandma can file for visitation, if we were still married she
> could not, if this is not discrimination against divorced parents I
> don't know what is.
> My x-husband and I have a great relationship and share birthdays,
> Xmas and many others days of the years together with our son as a
> blended family.
> My mothers has had no contact with our son in four years and the
> court awards overnight visits right away. My son will be twelve in
> July and it will also be four years in July since tie with grandma
> were broken. My child was not allow to voice his opinion and the
> courts assume this is what he wants based on testimony of my
> mother. They could not be further from the truth. My son said he
> will not go and both parents object due to passed history with
> grandma and patterns of psychical violates of her husband toward the
> family, even death threats . I don't know if your akidsright.org
> group can help give my son a voice but this family needs groups such
> as yours to help us. The best interest and safety of our child is be
> threatened.
>
> If you can help or refer us to groups for child and parents
rights in CA or anywhere we would appreciate.
> Lisa Wright-Clegg
> Littlemister9401@sbcglobal.net
Yes, I agree with you. While there may be some issue when one of the
parent's get's their custody cut off -- the Grandparent's on that side
should be given some visits. But when both parent's don't want it to
happen -- no Court should overrule that. It is a private family
matter.
2. New Jersey Decision: Bonding does not matter - we decide!?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Juls <Jp08055newj@aol.com>
---
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0223-05T40223-05T4
LORI DEPASQUALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM WEYERHAEUSER, Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________________________________________
Argued March 7, 2006 - Decided May 15, 2006
Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Seltzer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division,
Family Part, Burlington County, FM-03-278-99.
James P. Yudes argued the cause for appellant (James P. Yudes,
attorneys; Kevin M. Mazza, on the brief).
William J. Thompson argued the cause for respondent (Archer & Greiner,
attorneys; Mr. Thompson and Stephanie J. Zane, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, William Weyerhaeuser, and plaintiff, Lori DePasquale, were
married on August 19, 1996. One child was born of the marriage, Curtis
Weyerhaeuser, date of birth (DOB) May 25, 1997. A complaint for
divorce was filed by plaintiff in or about September 1998, following
the parties separation the previous month. A Final Judgment of Divorce
was entered on June 26, 2001. The judgment provided that:
As to custody, the parties have agreed that they will share true,
joint, equal shared custody. Said shared custody shall include both
physical and legal custody with the understanding that the parties
shall have equal time sharing, equal parenting time, and also equal
decision making as to all significant decisions affecting Curtis'[s]
health, education, welfare and upbringing.
The judgment further recites that in order to effectuate the joint
custody arrangement, defendant had agreed to relocate from the
Baltimore area to New Jersey. Defendant, however, expressly reserved
"the right to return to the Baltimore area and on application to [the]
court, seek primary custodial status of Curtis" if plaintiff did not
comply with the agreement.
The parties were unable to carry out the joint custody in the
agreement effectively and required court intervention on numerous
occasions related to the issues of custody and parenting time. As a
result of their continuing difficulties, on March 5, 2004, the court
appointed a guardian ad litem, Deborah O'Donnell, Esq. (the guardian),
to act in Curtis's best interests pursuant to R. 5:8B. The guardian
interviewed Curtis, the parties twice, Curtis's school representatives
and both of Curtis's therapists. The guardian's recommendation was
that the joint legal and physical custodial arrangement was not in
Curtis's best interest. In her view, the current arrangement was
adversely affecting him. She recommended sole custody of Curtis be
granted to defendant with parenting time for plaintiff on two weekends
per month.
The court believed it necessary to conduct a hearing to consider the
guardian's recommendation. A plenary hearing occurred over five days
in April and May 2005. The court found that custody of Curtis should
be immediately transferred to defendant. The court granted plaintiff
parenting time on every Tuesday after school until 8:00 p.m., and on
the first two weekends of every month and denied defendant's request
to relocate to Maryland.
Plaintiff then requested a custodial evaluation. The court appointed
Patricia Ronayne, Esq. as Curtis's attorney. The court requested
information from the parties, from Curtis's lawyer and from his
therapist concerning the name of the intended therapist, the reason
for the evaluation and whether Curtis could withstand the
evaluation. The court denied plaintiff's application for a custodial
evaluation because of the potential harm it might cause to Curtis.
The court allocated the fees incurred as a result of a therapist's
involvement, the appointment of the attorney for Curtis and the
guardian ad litem's services to be split equally between the
parties. The court also ordered plaintiff to pay child support in the
amount of $97 per week in accordance with the child support guidelines
worksheet.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that she was misled with respect to the
nature of the hearing because she expected that it would be an interim
hearing with a final determination to be made at a later date; that
the court changed custody without a finding of imminent danger to the
child; that the evidence did not support the judge's findings and that
those findings were nothing more than the adoption of the guardian's
recommendations; that the findings could not have been made without a
custody evaluation that was improperly denied to plaintiff; and that
the court erred in determining plaintiff's child support obligation
and her contribution toward the fees related to the cost of the
child's attorney, therapist and the guardian ad litem. We find no
merit in any of plaintiff's contentions, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we
affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Marie
E. Lihotz's thorough written opinion dated August 26, 2005.
....
The court found that plaintiff "deliberately acts to counteract
defendant" and she "is hostile, demeaning, [and] derogatory in her
e-mail communications" with defendant. Moreover, it found that
plaintiff has "serious issues" in understanding Curtis's current
situation and plaintiff's denial of the situation is "astounding." The
court explained that:
Plaintiff is insensitive to Curtis's feelings. He adores his father,
yet she wants Curtis to compartmentalize his life so that the time
with his father is the time with his father and the time with her is
the time with her. She does what she wants to do, in a way, without
regard to the impact on Curtis.
Plaintiff has exaggerated facts, contradicted herself, and frankly,
much of her testimony is not credible.
According to the court, plaintiff either "doesn't have a clue, or
she's just flat out lying." The court concluded that a continuation of
the present situation "is emotionally harming Curtis." Therefore, the
court determined that "an immediate modification of custody is
warranted."
... Second, the court properly rejected plaintiff's contention that it
could not make a determination to transfer custody of Curtis without a
custodial evaluation. The court denied plaintiff's request for a
determination as to her bond with Curtis because it was concerned
Curtis could not withstand such an evaluation. A bonding evaluation,
however, was not necessary. Whether or not Curtis and plaintiff have a
bond is not determinative. The controlling determination is Curtis's
best interest. See Wilke v. Culp, 196 N.J. Super. 487, 497
(App. Div. 1984). The court has the power to modify custody if it is
in the child's best interest. Ibid. It is implicit that where physical
custody is switched from one parent to the other that the original
custodial parent had a bond with the child.
As pointed out by the court:
Bonding is not the issue. The relationship between the parent and the
child -- bonding is an issue that comes when the child is very young,
it comes from the initial interaction between parent and child. I
mean, bonding is something we investigate, for example, in termination
of parental rights cases, when abandonment is the issue. I mean,
bonding is not the issue. I mean, Curtis loves his mom. There is no
doubt in my mind he loves her.
Plaintiff's bond with her child does not preclude an order granting
defendant sole custody when the court determines, as it did here, that
such an order is in Curtis's best interest.
We affirm the trial court's denial of the requested evaluation based
on the harm it could produce to Curtis.
Affirmed.
------
3. Equal Parenting Rally - Columbus, Ohio, June 16
--------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: akron@pacegroup.org
11 AM - 1 PM: Ohio State House
Join us as we bring together as a single group, DADS of
:country-region>:place>America, Parents And Children for Equality,
Fathers-4-Justice, Fathers And Mothers For Equality and the National
Organization for Parental Equality in support of changes to the laws
to protect the equal rights of every fit parent to have equal legal
and physical custody. Together we will show the legislators of this
state that we must have a law that protects the equal rights of all
fit parents. Now is the time to take a stand and show that we are
united and that our rights must be protected
* Family friendly event to fight for equal parenting rights.
* Giant mobile billboard from Fathers-4-Justice as we announce
our national launch!
* Motorcycle Cruise.
* Superhero mothers and fathers.
* Guest speakers from around the :country-region>:place>USA.
* KRights radio will be broadcasting from there!
* Plenty of music, chanting and etc:
Saturday begins at Iron Pony Motorsports with a motorcycle ride as the
Superheroes escort the Billboard to the Statehouse grounds to begin
our call to the legislators for equal rights for all fit parents.
Watch the web at http://www.equalparent.info/ for further details as
they come in or email us at: info@equalparent.info.
4. Washington Family Law Reform Conference - Sept 15-16
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: iamjahlul@aim.com (forwarded from ACFC)
Family law touches every American. Family law is on the front pages
every day. Family law is wreaking havoc with our society, our
Constitution, and our children. Divorce, custody, child abuse,
domestic violence, and other issues - every American knows someone
whose family and life have been turned upside-down by the workings of
family law.
Americans are demanding change. Yet a serious and open discussion of
this troubled area has been suppressed by special interests who profit
from the turmoil and who silence voices for reform....
We will hear leading scholars from fields other than those that
dominate family law and family policy. Leading educators, parents,
citizens, activists, and political figures will gather to address the
problems created by current family law and family policy. We will
raise fundamental, critical questions that are ignored by family law
practitioners.
Join us and put shared parenting, family law reform and family policy
at the top of the national agenda.
Click here for details and to REGISTER
http://www.acfc.org/site/Calendar?view=Detail&id=100021
5. Words from Canada's Batman - great parade!
----------------------------------------------
Submitted by: "Jeremy Swanson" <swanson@storm.ca>
On Victoria day, May 22/06, Fathers4Justice Canada's Victoria and
Vancouver team members participated in one of Canada's largest
parades, the May Day Parade in Victoria BC Canada....
Superheroes included upon our float this year were, the BC Hulk, the
Victoria Spiderman, the Green Lantern, the Victoria Superman, the
Flash, the Burnaby Bat and Robin QC, Bat Girl, Wonder Woman, Super
Girl and Zorro....
After which the convoy through the street of downtown Victoria
began. The streets were lined with thousands of spectators who braved
the rain and showed their support to parade participants... Check 6 in
Victoria televised the parade live to the rest of the Province.
This years participation in the parade also marked the second
anniversary of the inaugural action of fathers4Justice Canada. Our
float consisted of a 30 foot trailer and truck kindly donated by one
of our Vancouver team members, the Tackler. Upon which was the
creation of the F4J Victoria dream team who spent many hours in
preparations. This included a replica of Gotham City, a family court
with a kangaroo presiding, a crane with miniature heroes upon it, and
a cable that was suspended and extended the distance of the float for
the superheroes to utilize.
All in all the event was a complete success and we were very well
received by Victoria residents. There were a couple of occasions
during the parade while the Burnaby Bat was standing upon the
constructed building upon our float where the Bat had to duck while
passing traffic lights and street cables, which entertained the
audience immensely.
Once more I would like to thank all those who contributed their time
and money to make this years event a success. As well I would
personally like to thank our hosts in Victoria, the Green Lantern
(Robert Waters)and his lovely wife Adora (0ur Kangaroo)for putting us
up and feeding us. As well special thanks are in order too the
Victoria Superman (Doug Hanlan)for his dedication and commitment to
the coordinating of this years event and his hard work making our
float an awesome sight to behold.
I would further like to thank all those in Victoria who attended and
those Vancouver residents who showed up in support.
Pictures and footage will soon be added as they come in.............
Happy Birthday Fathers4Justice Canada.
You rock Victoria......
Best Wishes: Robert Robinson - Canada's First Batman
6. Change the name of Fathers-4-Justice?
----------------------------------------
--- Jean Cloutier <cloutierj13@yahoo.ca>
> Should we in Canada change Fathers-4-Justice name for
> Parents-4-Justice?
Thanks for the message and sorry for the delay. Here are some
thoughts I sent out to our list earlier. From my experiences in
visiting the offices of legislators, we are most effective when we
present ourselves as a group of mothers and fathers -- parents. It
defuses the whole issue of gender war! Many groups like to keep the
"Fathers/Dads" name as an 'attractor' -- it may be best if we try to
get people thinking of themselves as parents?
The product we are selling is NOT Father's/Men's Rights
-------------------------------------------------------
This has been said before, if 'reform' was your product, how would you
get the most people into your store? By just saying it's a Father's
issue!? Half of AKidsRight.Org members are Moms who have been
mistreated by the system. What about the 'accused' child abusers --
that have seen social workers walk into their home and take their kids
on a 'hunch'?
What is the common thread here? They are all PARENTS whose CHILDREN
were hurt by a SYSTEM that has failed to recognize and protect our
GREAT CIVIL RIGHT to presumption of 'fitness' and EQUAL parenting.
The protection of a JURY of your peers before government interferes in
your family.
I would like to see people brought together from all these groups and
work together with that goal in mind.
--------------------------------------------------------
--
Webmaster
__________________________________________________________________
webmaster@AKidsRight.Org "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211) http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
=======================================
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 07 2007 - 19:19:32 EST