tagged w/ corrupt courts
-
20-2-2275 Smith v. Smith, Law. Div.–Hudson Cy. (Gallipoli, A.J.S.C.) (13 pp.) Plaintiff commenced this suit against his former wife and her parents, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, as a result of defendants taking actions to alienate plaintiff from the couple’s children. Defendants claim that plaintiff’s action is for alienation of affections, a cause of action abolished by the “Heart Balm Act,” and should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court found that because plaintiff alleged that defendants’ alienating behavior caused him emotional distress, the predicate claim is not alienation of affections but emotional distress.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=120242657325220-2-2275 Smith v. Smith, Law. Div.–Hudson Cy. (Gallipoli, A.J.S.C.) (13 pp.)... more
-
-
Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the 'Deadbeat Dad'; starting with a welfare scenerio, showing that since dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother there simply is no incentives for fathers to pay support thru the system, because $1 paid to the state provides $0 benefit to the child, and only payments under the table directly to the mother or child have any real benefit to the child.
Many non custodial parents [NCP] argue that all parents have a responsibility to care for thier child, but that making these payments thru the state is the least responsible course of action, because the only real support a NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and directly on a child.
The book by Comanor explains Child Support Civil Disobedience for higher income levels thru an analysis of the difference between individual and collective consumption preferences. Child support payments raises the income of the custodial [CP] parent thus raising the individual consumption preference of that parent, so that only a portion of the Non Custodial Parent's child support payment is now allocated to the child. So, like in the welfare baby moma scenerio, the $1 dollar of NCP pays in support payment is no longer $1 going to the child, but rather a fraction gets apportioned to the child, with the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due. The NCP views 'under the table' and 'off the books' support payments as a dollar for dollar contribution to the child, while forced state child support schemes are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child.
Often a CP must enroll a child in daycare, hire a babysitter or other activity after divorce, to replace the child caring role of the NCP previosly held in the marriage. In this scenerio litigations ensue to minimize NCP contact in order to maximize the child support payments to the CP, which do nothing to benefit the child. but simply transfer both the income and the role of the NCP to a third party, often against the wishes and preferences of the NCP. When a NCP shares in the care of a child, he may have preferences to care for the child say 50 hours a month, and spend say $500 a month on the child, and the child directly benefits $500 and quality parent involvment. When forced out of the family by the state, the $500 a month support payment paid by the NCP may only pay for the 50 hours of supervision at say $10/hr, and while the NCP 'out of pocket' expense is still $500, the child recieves $0 benefit from this transfer and both the chilld and NCP are denied other benefits of care and companionship.
In the case of a high conflict divorce at higher income levels, reasonable parents may conclude that $0 of thier child support payments does anything to support thier child, and it is just another name for payment directly to the corrupt court that is paid to remove the NCP from thier children. The Wall Street Journal published a recent study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about $78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP to the CP would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed to win the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus, $0 dollar benefiting the child compared to an alternative resolution without legal fees leaves that amount to benefit the child. Parents may simply view the forced orders for custody payments as Lawyer Support; and Lawyer Support Civil Disobedience has a much nicer ring to it. Corruption across Family courts could be easily measured by comparing data on legal fees, child support amounts, and allocation of parenting time... if the courts were not so corrupt and made this information readily available for analysis.Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor... more
-
-
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 'RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD' BILL, is likely to be passed soon after inauguration. Father's rights advocates should take special note of the following aspects of this bill, and be professionally prepared to apply for funding for research and programs related to 'Responsible Fatherhood'.
Just as feminsts, NOW and 'women's studies' graduates have been well funded for decades to promote programs for women and mothers, we in the fathers rights movement must be prepared to step up to the plate to promote programs for men and fathers. It would be very sad if Obama's Fatherhood plan lacked any real substance and diversity but instead failed to include Father's Rights advocates at the table, and only continued the hollow male bashing of typical feminst demgoguery such as the bloated and over funded VAWA which may be one of the greatest causes of fatherless in our society today.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The most important factor in a child's upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.
(2) Children who grow up with two parents are, on average, more likely than their peers in single-parent homes to finish high school and be economically self-sufficient.
(3) Father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children.
SEC. 107. STATE ASSESSMENTS OF BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CHILDREN.
(a) State Assessments and Reports- As a condition of the continued approval of a State plan under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), each State with an approved such plan, acting through the appropriate State agencies, shall assess the State policies with respect to the issues described in subsection (b) and submit a report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the results of such assessment not later than March 15, 2008.
(b) (5) Identification of any other barriers to healthy family formation or sustainable economic opportunity for custodial and noncustodial parents that are created or exacerbated by Federal or State laws, policies, or procedures, including an examination of the rules of Federal and State means-tested programs, the operation of the State workforce system, the availability of financial education services...
(c) Grants to States for Commissions on State Law Improvements in the Best Interest of Children and Families- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall award grants to States to establish or support commissions to review the State assessment conducted in accordance with subsection (a) and to make recommendations on ways to improve State law in the best interest of children and families.PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 'RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD' BILL, is likely to be passed... more
-
-
National Fatherhood Initiative Research
National Fatherhood Initiative conducts research on fatherhood-related topics and on marriage In addition to evaluations on the effectiveness of programs.
The Publication One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence, shows how the federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs - such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts - that support father-absent homes.National Fatherhood Initiative Research
National Fatherhood Initiative conducts... more
-
-
When county courts or other agents of the state violate a parent's constitutional right to care and companionship of thier own child, they frequently commit 42 USC 1983 color of law violactions and other crimes, that in totality, meet the criteria for RICO act civil relief. When corrupt, incompetant courts, lawyers, quacks and other 'service providers' conspire to drag out sham litigations, and create non-custodial parents to fuel the gravy train of funding that follows, extortion of parents and wire fraud of federal funds intended to help children and families is also involved. Matching federal funds for collection of child support payments is also typically wire fraud, as well as the deluge of funds for each case, hearing, placement, adoption, visitation or other bogus 'service' billed, since these expsensive activities do nothing to help children or parents, as these programs were intended, but only to enrich feindish lawyers and other 'providers' that use these services like weapons to further legal harassment and deliberate infliction of emotional distress on parents and children. The state is the most prolific abuser of children on the planet, especially by parental alienation thru hideous programs invented by cronies of corrupt courts busily thieving money. Since these hordes of scoundrals derive thier income from the trading of children, and snatching them from fit parents, it can also be viewed as a crime of human trafficking. Corrupt child custody proceedings often include kidnapping, extortion, perjury, false or altered documents, alterted court transcripts and recordings, witness harassment, witness tampering, and all forms of unethical and unprofessional conduct by quack witnesses, lawyers, and judges alike.When county courts or other agents of the state violate a parent's constitutional... more
-
-
The story tagged to this posting is about an army unit in Columbia, who needed to produce rebel 'kills'. The soldiers needed 'kills' in order to get leave, vacation days off. The officers needed 'kills' for promotions and performance reviews. So they routinely lured civilians
to the base, killed them, and called them 'Rebels'. This was discovered when the brother of a soldier was killed, despite protests.
In the United States an 'army' of workers in the domestic violence and abuse industry does much the same thing, and often fabricates false accusations or 'lures' parents in
custody disputes to make false accusations, in order to bring up the numbers needed to get thier funding, promotions, etc..
There are many studies that address the problems of false abuse and domestic violence accusations in the context of divorce and custody disputes, such as:
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/reports2.htm
Many of these studies fail to include analysis of another very basic motivation
behind false accusations of domestic violence and abuse in the context
of custody: the money. The falsely 'accusing' parent usually profits from false
accusations in the form of more custody, more child support,
vindictive gratification of using the courts like a club to attack the
other parent and 'win' the custody battle. The lawyers also
clearly 'win' lots of money from the extortion racket threatening both
parents thier kids will be taken away unless they pay thru the nose for
more and more legal fees. In reality, there is an entire 'army' of
corrupt conspirators in the 'abuse' industry that simply must generate
abuse and domestic violence numbers in order to survive. Imagine what
would happen to all the shelters, and quacks, and experts and case
workers who's income depends upon domestic violence and abuse, if
no 'real' cases could be found? would they simply sit at thier desks
twidling thier thumbs?
Parents and children are nothing but 'meat' for the butchers in the
corrupt family court racket seeking to maximize thier own best interest
by exploiting children and targeting parents with false domestic
violence and abuse accusations.
The logical solution to this problem would be to end all funding
schemes that are based on quantity of abuse or domestic violence
reports, to reduce the incentive to produce bogus reports. A more
simple neutral funding scheme, such as basing funding for abuse
prevention programs on a simple population headcount would be
preferable. A 'progessive' funding scheme would reward communities with
programs in place successful at preventing abuse and domestic violence.The story tagged to this posting is about an army unit in Columbia, who needed to... more
-
