Showing posts with label childrens rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label childrens rights. Show all posts

Friday, September 25, 2009

Male Suicide and the Family Court System


Male Suicide and the Family Court System


September 25th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

"I know my father was a good man and a good father. ... He obviously reached a point where he could see that justice was beyond his reach and for reasons that only God will know, decided that taking his life was the only way to end his suffering," Ashlee White wrote. Ashlee signed the letter "In Memory of My Loving Father."

Those are the words of a 14-year-old Canadian girl writing to that country's prime minister. Her father had been denied access to her because he was unable to pay child support that was set at twice his take-home pay. Darrin White's anguish at losing contact with his daughter, and the frank indifference of the Canadian family court system to either his or her welfare led him to hang himself. As Ashlee said, justice was indeed "beyond his reach."

That justice is beyond the reach of many fathers is one of the main reason this blog exists; it's one of the reasons for the astonishing growth industry called 'fathers' rights.' Here and in many other places are chronicled the countless injustices done to children and their fathers in the name of a mythology created over the past forty years. That mythology holds that fathers are indifferent to their children at best and dangerous to them at worst. It holds that even the most caring father is incompetent to do the simplest task relating to children.

This piece, by the always thoughtful and balanced feminist, Wendy McElroy, deals with another, largely unseen aspect of injustice in family courts - male suicide. Men in this country and others are four to five times as likely to commit suicide as are women. And it turns out that the anti-male bias of family courts plays a significant role.

Study's from a number of countries bear this out. As McElroy says,
Statistics from Ireland and the United Kingdom indicate rates of male suicide as high as five times that of women. Indeed, a recent study found that suicide was the leading cause of death for Irish men between 15-34 years old.

The research also points to a probable cause. According to sociologist Augustine Kposow of the University of California at Riverside, divorce and loss of children is a factor. "As far as the [divorced] man is concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead to depression and suicide," Kposow advises.

The Australian study's suggested reasons for some of the suicides include "marriage breakdown."

"There is evidence to suggest that many men sense they are being discriminated against in family court judgements," the study says. Cut off from their children, divorced men experience heightened "frustration and isolation."

At this point, I'd like to remind readers of what I've written about before. Nature provides a physiological attachment between parents and children. When a woman is pregnant, both she and the father undergo dramatic increases in the levels of the hormones prolactin, cortisol and oestradiol. Among many mammal species, including humans and primates, and among almost all bird species, those hormones are what connect parents to their offspring. They are what make adults set aside their own interests in favor of their offspring's. Survival is perhaps the most powerful motivation any individual has, but so strong is the connection those hormones create in parents that it can displace even the need to live. That connection is the reason that adults will do virtually anything, including fighting to the death, to care for and protect their offspring.

Let me suggest then that, when that most basic of connections is threatened or destroyed by a force larger than any single person - a force like the family law system, for example - it can have devastating consequences. If a lioness is willing to die protecting her cubs against hyenas, might not a human father die to maintain the same connection to his child? To me, the two look eerily similar.

Whatever the case, read McElroy's piece.

Thanks to Jeremy for the heads-up.






GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Male Suicide and the Family Court System.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
By Barbara C. Johnson
Published August 2009

The book addresses a serious problem, the need for court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Marinated with the makings of sizzle, the book is filled with the courts’ tricks and traps for the unwary—to alert the readers both why their law cases failed and what must be done to effect court reform.

Each chapter introduces the background of the subject of that chapter and then presents a series of illustrative anecdotes intended to teach the readers by example how to avoid those court tricks and traps people are likely to encounter in their existing or potential court cases.

Its author, Barbara C. Johnson, an unconventional 74-year-old, has long been a fierce advocate for fathers' rights in family courts. She is an outspoken critic of the Massachusetts court system, which she says is rife with corruption.

In 2002, she ran a quixotic campaign for governor, campaigning in an antique fire truck and promising to use creativity, compassion, and a willingness to listen to the People to mend an ailing government.

In 2006, Johnson was barred from practicing law in Massachusetts. “The disbarment by a kangaroo court was an effort to silence my criticism of the courts,” she said.

A newspaper wrote, “While we don't fully agree with either her politics or her methods, Johnson is a character in a humdrum world sorely in need of more characters. She's the thorn in the side, the thumbtack on the chair. . . . Johnson speaks her mind, and loudly.”

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice is available for purchase at-

* www.Amazon.com

* www.Abebooks.com

* www.Alibris.com

Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact

Apdo #404-4013 Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas 20501-Costa Rica

barbaracjohnson74@gmail.com SKYPE ID: barbaracjohnson74 Phone 2446-6724

False Allegations: http://www.falseallegations.com

Participating Attorney: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml
Campaign 2002: http://www.barbforgovernor.com


The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed. There are four people who can do the job: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it. It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it. At least I'm trying. What are you doing?

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. --- VOLTAIRE

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --- ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Child Custody Case to study Constitutional Protections

Fathers frequently left without significant contact
Posted: May 12, 2009
10:58 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A court hearing is scheduled tomorrow on arguments that allege the basic child custody procedures used by judges in Bradley County, Tenn., are unconstitutionally biased in favor of one parent.

WND previously reported on the case stemming from a divorce dispute that attorney Stanley Charles Thorne believes could impact custody decisions nationwide, because it calls down the authority of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to help fathers who are good parents.

According to Thorne, the case before Circuit Judge J. Michael Sharp is testing the court procedures used in the child custody case of 3-year-old Kate Hopkins, which began in 2007.

After more than two years in court and five different judges, the case is set for trial beginning May 27 in Sharp's courtroom. But Sharp is hearing the constitutional issues before the rest of the case is heard.

Attorney Jeffrey Miller will argue on behalf of fit Tennessee parents and their children, and an attorney from the Tennessee attorney general's office, Warren Jasper, is expected to argue on behalf of the standard procedures.

According to a statement from Thorne, one of the procedures that will be challenged is the "80-day rule" created by local judges. It automatically takes effect as soon as a child custody case is filed, allowing one parent only 80 days a year with the child while the other parent is allowed 285 days – regardless of circumstances.

The rule, Miller argues, discriminates against one parent, violating the principle of equal protection as well as due process, since it is imposed without a hearing.

Such procedures would be banned if Sharp rules the practices are unconstitutional, Thorne's statement said.

Hundreds of divorce cases are filed daily across the U.S., and according to the Children'sJustice.org website, custody dispute cases leave nearly 38 percent of the fathers with no access or visitation rights to their children. In addition, four in 10 mothers report they interfered with the father's visitation to punish him at least once, half the mothers see "no value" in the father's continued contact with his children and 70 percent of the fathers wanted more time with their kids.

Thorne is serving as a consultant in the case of Jeremy Hopkins, a successful lawyer, in his attempts to be treated the same as his daughter's mother, Elisabeth, also a successful lawyer, in their custody of Kate.

Since the mother left the family in Tennessee and took Kate to Pennsylvania about two years ago, Jeremy Hopkins has been allowed only sporadic days with his daughter.

"All I want for my daughter is for her to have mom and a dad," Jeremy Hopkins told WDEF-TV in Chattanooga.

Michael McCormick of the Institute for American Families said the system is set up to pit a mother against a father in a marital dispute, when it should be working to accommodate the needs of a child for both a mother and father.

"The courts are going to pick a winner and a loser and when they do that, the child ultimately loses," he told the station at a recent rally regarding the case.

"If we look at what's happening to our society we can trace the social pathologies just as increased rates of incarceration, early sexual activity for girls, truancy issues related to the family breaking down and the social fabric of our society is breaking down in terms of the family breaking down, we are being weaken as a nation and we need to change that," McCormick added.

He estimates 17 million fathers nationwide do not have fair access to their children, and about 3 million mothers have the same problem.

Thorne, who has 25 years experience as a lawyer, most recently has specialized in constitutional issues in family courts, representing parents and children on various issues.

The family's life was disrupted by the mother's decision to leave, Thorne said, but the relationship of the father and daughter was aggravated by a "family court system that cares for neither of them while it keeps them mired in a swamp of never-ending legal hassles just to be together."

"Many constitutional issues will be decided by Kate Hopkins' case," he continued. "Perhaps the most important is where the Constitution draws the line to protect the relationship between an innocent child and an innocent parent from government interference."

he dispute came to a head just before last Christmas, following the expiration of the most recent visitation order. Jeremy Hopkins, on a scheduled visit with his daughter, decided to have her stay in Tennessee until a court hearing on the required court-ordered visitation plan.

Instead, he was arrested for interfering with a custodial plan, "even though there was no court order in force," and his daughter was returned to Pennsylvania. The warrant later was quashed by a judge, who essentially determined it never should have been issued.

Thorne questioned the legal system ordering a child taken from one parent "when the child is in no danger … and the child has never been abused, neglected, or harmed" and given to another parent absent a court order.

The 14th Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"This case affects not just the people of Tennessee," Thorne said. "This is huge."

Numerous organizations are working for the rights of fathers in disputes like the Tennessee case, including FathersCustody.org, LongDistanceParenting.org, Fathers False Charges Helpline, Fathers National Lawyers Referral, WinningCustody.com and FathersRights.org.

The original article can be found here:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97943

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Senate to VOTE on PARENTAL RIGHTS (UN Treaty) this session

Senate to VOTE on PARENTAL RIGHTS (UN Treaty) this session
Michael Farris
US Constitutional Attorney
www.ParentalRights.org



If you cannot see this video, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i3MUFatgW8

If this treaty is accepted as federal "law" under the supremacy clause of the Constitution it would be the Supreme law of the land.

It would affect and effect massive child custody and CPS law in every state in the union. It would be a revolution, but not for the best. It would grant equal rights to children, in essence, leveling the playing ... Read Morefield. But do we really see children between the ages of 0-18 capable of making decisions "in their best interest" ??

Only the parents should be left with those decisions, and certainly not the state barring "clear and convincing" evidence of abuse and neglect.

Parents need to contact their representatives in Congress to support the House Joint Resolution 42 (H.J.R. 42) and urge them to sign on as a co-sponsor to this legislation.