Big lawsuit

Something of interest:

~AZ~

Coalition of Parents Unite in Nationwide Class Action
for Their Children

Representatives from across the country are announcing that
on September 17, 2004, they will simultaneously file federal
class action lawsuits, on behalf of an estimated 25 million
noncustodial parents, demanding that rights to equal custody
of their children be restored by the federal courts.

In what some are calling "the mother of all lawsuits", the parents
will challenge widespread practices by the states in determining
care, custody, and support of children. "Parents are tired of being
mistreated as second class citizens by state courts," according to
Torm L. Howse, President of the Indiana Civil Rights Council. "Most
parents say they care about their children, their families, and the
related unnecessary waste of their hard-earned taxdollars, more than
all other political issues combined."

Plaintiffs are seeking damages in all 50 states, bringing widespread
attention to what they allege as years of disparate taxation and
willful financial mismanagement. The coalition is comprised of
various leaders from family rights, fathers rights, mothers rights,
and shared parenting groups, as well as political candidates,
doctors, and other activists committed to dramatic social, taxation,
and government reform in the area of family law. The effort is also
backed by several prominent family rights organizations.

"We're trying to protect the right of all fit parents to share
equally in the custody and care of their children," says Howse. "The
time has come for a drastic reform of government practices that harm
children and parents." "Kids need both parents," adds Rachel
Forrest, a leader with the National Congress for Fathers and
Children. "We hope that this landmark action will wake up the
government and make it aware of the inequities in family courts and
social services that prevent our children from having equal access
to both of their parents."

According to attorney Garrett C. Dailey, who successfully obtained a
recent landmark California Supreme Court decision, "children of
divorced parents who have two primary parents in their lives do
better in school, are better adjusted and happier than children
raised by only one primary parent." Likewise, the American
Psychological Association, the world's largest such group, confirmed
through an exhaustive study that children in joint custody
arrangements have less behavior and emotional problems, higher self-
esteem, better family relations, and better school performance than
children who are subjected to sole custody arrangements. Agreeing in
a decision long-touted by parental rights advocates, Judge Dorothy
T. Beasley of the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled: "Inherent in the
express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal
access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and
nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by
the application of both parents' wisdom, judgement and experience.
The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."

In addition to challenging standard practices pertaining to family
law, the coalition also alleges that while nearly every state has
recognized catastrophic budgetary failures, the states still
recklessly refuse to consider the financial devastation involved
with encouraging routine awards of sole custody, reminding that such
patterns dramatically increase crime, poverty, drug use, suicides,
dropouts, teenage pregnancies, and other forms of direct harm and
costs against children, families, taxpayers, and society in general.
Professor Stephen Baskerville, distinguished master of political
science at Howard University, and one of the world's foremost
experts on various custody and child support issues,
explains: "Politicians often spend money to avoid confronting
problems. Yet marshaling the government to strengthen families seems
especially pointless when it is government that weakened the family
in the first place."

The plaintiffs further allege that the relocation of children away
from one parent radically increases the incidence of parental
kidnappings, which dwarf all other types of kidnappings, and wastes
additional taxdollars in the ensuing processes. An in-depth
analysis, conducted in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Justice,
confirmed that over 350,000 children were abducted that year by a
family member - typically a parent involved in a custody dispute -
while the number of stereotypical kidnappings of children for ransom
amounted only to a few hundred nationwide.

The parents say that common inequities in state family courts are
also directly and indirectly responsible for murders and suicides
amongst the most estranged families. Every week, they note,
approximately 300 fathers and 75 mothers commit suicide in this
country, with the majority of these senseless deaths directly
attributable to victimization by family courts. These suicides are
often committed by passive parents, due to hopelessness in a system
fraught with injustice, but the more aggressive parents occasionally
snap at the weight of suffering such anguish, and violently take out
their desperation on estranged partners, sometimes even murdering
them, and possibly the children, before also killing themselves.

They also allege that the states are recklessly responsible for much
of the abuse and neglect experienced by children in this country.
The National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect Information,
a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
consistently reports that, year after year, single parents are
responsible for almost two-thirds of all substantiated cases of
abuse and neglect committed against children - more than all other
classes of perpetrators combined. The national costs of these child
abuse and neglect incidents surpassed $94 billion in 2001, according
to Prevent Child Abuse America. "It's painfully obvious that the
majority of child abuse can be easily prevented, by simply ensuring
the regular presence of both parents in the daily lives of
children," notes Howse. "Involving the eyes and ears of both parents
creates a naturally self-balancing situation, wherein a child's
health and safety is automatically monitored by opposing sides who
stand to gain if the other side fails."

The Plaintiffs further charge that because parents are generally
treated unfairly in family courts, the results are also directly or
indirectly responsible for very large, and otherwise unnecessary,
additional tax burdens upon every citizen, through increased welfare
spending and self-serving enlargement of state family agencies and
entities, and that such inequities are also indirectly responsible
for vast numbers of personal and corporate bankruptcies, which are
absorbed into even more future taxation. Additionally, they note a
pattern of fraud and abuse being progressively reported about
various state family bureaucracies, which they say are very costly
in terms of taxdollars, and which violate the rights of American
citizens on an unprecedented scale.

"It is high time for costly government to get out of the lives of
most parents and children," says Howse. "American taxpayers should
no longer be forced to fund systematic violations against parents
and children, and the needless progressive destruction of our
society."


For more information, contact:
Torm L. Howse
President, Indiana Civil Rights Council
317-769-6108



Or contact:
Robert G. Lasheff
Member, DADS in FAMILY COURT
Phone: 224-730-2970
Email:

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his
interest in his children may change.
====

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they
become involved.

But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...

The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such a
drastic decision.

I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get the
opportunity.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Something of interest:

~AZ~

Coalition of Parents Unite in Nationwide Class Action
for Their Children

[snip]

Where do I sign up!!!

"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it
will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context,
his
interest in his children may change.

And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'.


====

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they
become involved.

Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters
advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he wanted, or
mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered)


But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.

Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available?

This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...

I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions for
domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of
mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the court's
turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by non-compliance
of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance and
health insurance for the kids)?

Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the
children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's fault.


The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such a
drastic decision.

Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a
decision. You left out that one, too.


I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get the
opportunity.

This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force the CP
to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the
children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular situation.
Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to
start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own
choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Perhaps there where things you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.

THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to
make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise
inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...

The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all
possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity
with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his
actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such
a
drastic decision.

I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating
that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get
the
opportunity.

In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it
will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context,
his
interest in his children may change.

And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'.
===
It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents
50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire
a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I
doubt he would), he will need permission from the judge and will be financially
responsible for the defaulted time.
===

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to
start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own
choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or
may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they
become involved.

Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters
advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he
wanted, or
mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered)


But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things
you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.

Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available?

This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to
the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges
part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to
make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise
inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...

I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions
for
domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of
mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the
court's
turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by
non-compliance
of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance
and
health insurance for the kids)?
------------------
Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must
have been a terrible father.
--------------

Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the
children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's
fault.


The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all
possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity
with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his
actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such
a
drastic decision.

Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a
decision. You left out that one, too.
-----------------
There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way they
do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids because
they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if
they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that the
kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very bad
breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your kids
I'm sure they were able to feel the tension. I'm not saying that your ex
was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best
interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences to
a persons actions. It's almost impossible to understand why someone does
something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person in
a calm, open way.
-----------------


I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating
that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get t
he
opportunity.

This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force
the CP
to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the
children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular
situation.
Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts.
-------------
I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your ex.

~AZ~