If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote in message thlink.net... "gini52" wrote in message ... == Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are based on "change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental condition and/or lifestyle has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These changes are rarely easy and shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of the judge, he/she should be compelled to act. So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been married, quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had three children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and has never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove "change of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far worse occurs in her life like a felony conviction? Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug pusher who is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated, gets tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood. How can a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his word against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an issue unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What if the first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and a lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove a "changes of circumstances"? If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? The judge doesn't have to grant it. I watch an attorney pull this very trick. During the pendent lite hearing held as part of the divorce hearing. One of the attorneys wanted a clause in the temporary custody order that said neither parent would do drugs when the child was with them. The other attorney objected to the clause on the grounds that there was no reason to require his client to provide such a sample. The first attorney offered to withdraw the clause if the second attorney's client provided a urine or blood sample within 24 hours. After consultation with his client the second attorney agreed. I can only imagine what went on in that consultation. (the implication is that if you don't do drugs what is the problem. if you do do drugs you won't take the test). I don't know whether there has been a recent increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening *a lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not* default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both parents as well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is carrying the entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent." Mothers have always been more violent against their children than fathers. But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households are far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school, create teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act on these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they don't fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing parents. The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the individual. Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men from entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than others, but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north. That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the basis for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying problem areas. Statistical trands can be useful in certain ways. First, it isn't very useful in the judicial forum. It is useful in the legislative forum. Second, statistic regarding the poor outcome of kids from single mothers is a poor statistic to argue for joint or father custody. Rather the statistic to use is the extreme minority of custodial fathers to show some sort of systemic discrimination against males. Then it becomes a civil rights argument. Rather than an argument to increase support for single mothers because their kids have poor outcomes. Otherwise, let the accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to protect these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is one that is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge *will* listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can accomodate excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on these kids at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone. == == Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As long as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their mistakes. No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and are, held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held accountable to you just because you don't like the decision they made. I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private citizens have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in government are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse to accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is available is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws by the government. What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the cities, and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to shift tax dollars around. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Tracy" wrote in message news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an issue to make it appear both parties are at fault? Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told they are part of the problem. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an issue to make it appear both parties are at fault? The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits, then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the children. It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody. Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told they are part of the problem. Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean. I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Tracy" wrote in message news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an issue to make it appear both parties are at fault? The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits, then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the children. I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no similar issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal theory that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I am getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back on the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws I see in family law. It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody. Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told they are part of the problem. Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean. So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If one party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a mutual restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related household as well as one with violence? I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with. I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence to remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens, so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of income, is doing drugs? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an issue to make it appear both parties are at fault? The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits, then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the children. I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no similar issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal theory that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I am getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back on the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws I see in family law. It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody. Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told they are part of the problem. Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean. So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If one party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a mutual restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related household as well as one with violence? I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with. I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence to remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens, so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of income, is doing drugs? Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug use? The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic. T |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug use? In order of my personal priorities: fathers, close relatives, foster care, "clean" welfare mothers who get additional benefits for acting as surrogate mothers, adoptive parents, orphanages. As that sounds all fine and dandy, but in some areas, the whole family is just as screwed up as the CP. Father could be a drug addict, parents could be drug addicts, ect. Foster care.... well, sorry to say but ask around. Foster care isn't all its cracked up to be. Sometimes foster parents are worse then the real parents. BTW - Your question implies drug addicted parents do a good job of taking care of children. I disagree. How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken from them. The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic. That thinking is why government doesn't act on a lot of issues. Many government programs create unintended consequences. When the elephant in the living room is too big (drug addicted welfare recipients), the thinking goes nothing that can be done to remove the elephant (take the children out of a harmful environment), so ignoring the elephant (doing nothing) is the best option. I am not saying the government is RIGHT, I am saying that is the way it is. Hopefully we will live in a society where the goverment wouldn't even have to step in to take care of the kids. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
"Tiffany" wrote in message ... How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken from them. So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too much and the reason to take their children away from them? Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their children about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message rthlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Tracy" wrote in message news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "frazil" wrote in message ... If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test. And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you grant the drug test? Yes - I'd order one on both. So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an issue to make it appear both parties are at fault? The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits, then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the children. I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no similar issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal theory that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I am getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back on the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws I see in family law. It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody. Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told they are part of the problem. Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean. So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If one party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a mutual restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related household as well as one with violence? I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with. I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence to remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens, so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of income, is doing drugs? Because the purpose is different. The argument behind testing welfare recipients is that they are recieving a government benefit. High income parents are not. As a condition of revieving that benefit the government has the right and obligation to see that the benefit provided is not going towards anything illegel. Drug testing welfare recipients is not for the protection of children, rather it is for the protection of the tax paying public. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms
Bob Whiteside wrote in message thlink.net... "Tiffany" wrote in message ... How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken from them. So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too much and the reason to take their children away from them? Typically smoking pot isn't dangerous. Though I would suspect it would become apparent if a parent is smoking to much pot. If they are so out of it they don't feed the kids.... if they are so out of it and driving with the kids. Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their children about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility? Depends, but that is not the discusion here. I thought this was about welfare recipents getting tested for drug use and losing their kids. But to answer, I would say no and yes. A parent could say they know from personal use that it is not healthy to smoke pot because this or that happen to them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 2 | August 6th 04 09:20 PM |
DCF wrkrs & perjury Judge writes DCF wrong. U trust them? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | August 6th 04 03:04 PM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | General | 0 | January 12th 04 05:02 AM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | Spanking | 0 | January 12th 04 05:02 AM |
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues | Kane | Foster Parents | 0 | January 12th 04 05:02 AM |