Many conservative Christian politicians live and die by much of what is exposed and refuted in Woman this is WAR! . The book is a valuable resource for anyone who desires to educate others about where a candidate may really be coming from, for anyone who just wants to make an informed decision, or for concerned citizens to send to the candidates themselves. The author of Woman this is WAR! recently received confirmation that a copy of her book had been recieved by the office of Sarah Palin.
14 Ağustos 2012 Salı
Conservative Christian Candidates
To contact us Click HERE
The sacred beliefs of many conservative, Christian, politicians pose a danger to human rights due to strongly held convictions about gender roles. In order to understand how this can be true, Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System is the book to read and recommend.
Many conservative Christian politicians live and die by much of what is exposed and refuted in Woman this is WAR! . The book is a valuable resource for anyone who desires to educate others about where a candidate may really be coming from, for anyone who just wants to make an informed decision, or for concerned citizens to send to the candidates themselves. The author of Woman this is WAR! recently received confirmation that a copy of her book had been recieved by the office of Sarah Palin.
Many conservative Christian politicians live and die by much of what is exposed and refuted in Woman this is WAR! . The book is a valuable resource for anyone who desires to educate others about where a candidate may really be coming from, for anyone who just wants to make an informed decision, or for concerned citizens to send to the candidates themselves. The author of Woman this is WAR! recently received confirmation that a copy of her book had been recieved by the office of Sarah Palin.
Proposed Protective Parent Reform Act
To contact us Click HERE
All of the following is taken from author Talia Carner's site at http://www.taliacarner.com/proposedact.html . If you are an activist or a protective parent interested in presenting the Protective Parent Reform Act (PPRA) to a legislator, lawmaker or a group of activists, Talia Carner has prepared a Power Point presentation. This presentation includes important research that refutes the myths of PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) and other misconception about false allegations. View it here. For the original Microsoft Power Point version, which you can edit, please write to AuthorTalia (AT) aol.com. It is Talia's public service, provided at no charge.
PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Conceived and Drafted by:
Richard Ducote, Esq.
1 Allegheny Sq # 455
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
(412) 322-0750
Ducotelaw@aol.com
42 United States Code § 5105a. Protective Parent Reform Act
This Act shall be known as the "Protective Parent Reform Act." The purpose of this Act is to correct the trend in child custody and visitation cases wherein abused children, and children in homes where domestic violence exists, are placed by courts in the custody of the abusive or violent parent with the protective parent's custody, visitation, and contact with the child limited.
For any State or public agency to receive any assistance under the provisions of §§5106, 5106a, 5106(c), or 5116, for fiscal year 2005 and any year thereafter, the State or the State in which the public agency applicant is situated must demonstrate that effective June 1, 2005, the following safeguards have been effected and implemented either by statutory enactment or court rule promulgated by the highest court in the State, with such enactment or court rule applicable statewide in every court having jurisdiction over child custody, parental visitation, parenting time, parenting plans, conservatorship of children, or any other issue involving the residence of a child and the contact between the child and his or her parents, incidental to or following separation or divorce, or in connection with a paternity case where the parents have were not married, to ensure that a parent who reasonably believes that his or her child is threatened by child abuse or domestic violence, perpetrated or allowed by the other parent is not punished by the court, or otherwise penalized by loss or limitation of custody, contact, or visitation with his or her child, or the child denied the custody and contact with that parent, for that parent's having such reasonable belief and for acting lawfully in accordance with such belief:
(1) The prohibition against ex parte contacts with the judge hearing a child custody or child visitation case, as defined and controlled by state law, shall be specifically made applicable to child custody and child visitation cases, and shall, in addition to the general applicability of the prohibition, specifically include contacts between judges and guardians ad litem, minor’s counsel, custody evaluators, mental health professionals, mediators, screeners, and other such persons traditionally participating in child custody and visitation cases.
(2) The roles of guardians ad litem, minors' counsel, and children's attorneys shall be limited to advocating for the wishes of the child at issue, and to participating in the court proceedings by presentation of evidence and argument in the same manner as a parent's attorney. Such persons shall be prohibited from substituting their own opinions and judgments for the wishes of the child, submitting evidence which would be excluded under the applicable evidence law if tendered by any other party, and in no case shall such person be deemed a quasi-judicial officer or be granted any fact-finding role. This provision shall not require a State to mandate an attorney to represent any child in custody or visitation cases, but shall only be interpreted to the limit the role of such person when provided.
(3) Parents shall be provided full and timely access to all custody and mental health evaluations and reports which are to be considered in any custody or visitation proceeding, including all underlying data for such evaluations and reports, and shall be afforded the opportunity to depose prior to the trial and to cross examine at trial any and all mental health or custody evaluators who will testify in a custody or visitation proceeding.
(4) No expert opinion or expert evidence attempting to discredit a parent's motivation for asserting that his or her child is abused or at risk of the effects of domestic violence committed by the other parent, or attempting to discredit a child's report of such abuse or violence, shall be allowed in a custody or visitation case unless that opinion or evidence is based on concepts and theories generally accepted by the scientific community and supported by credible and admissible evidence of facts which can be established independently of that expert's opinion.
(5) Due process shall be afforded all parents in such custody and visitation cases, and such custody and visitation decisions removing custody, visitation, or contact from a parent who believes or asserts that his or her child is the victim of abuse or the effects of domestic violence perpetrated by the other parent shall not be made on the basis of written declarations or affidavits, or without adequate written advance notice and the opportunity to be heard as defined by state and federal constitutional law, even on a purportedly emergency basis, simply because that parent holds that belief. Furthermore, no such parent shall lose custody, visitation, or contact with a child based only on the opinion of a mental health professional that such parent is at risk of unlawfully fleeing with the child, unless credible and admissible evidence independent of the professional's opinion establishes that parent's plan or intent to flee.
(6) Court sponsored mediation, conciliation, and intake screening programs shall not make recommendations or fact-finding reports to the judge regarding child custody, visitation, or contact unless all parties freely agree in advance of the transmittal of such report, and any parent shall have the right to contest the report.
(7) No findings by any child protection agency shall be considered res judicata or collateral estoppel, and shall not be considered by the court unless all parents are afforded the opportunity to challenge any such determination.
(8) Whenever child abuse or domestic violence is an issue in a child custody or visitation case, no mental health professional or child custody evaluator who lacks specialized training and experience in child abuse or domestic violence relevant to the specific allegations shall be appointed by the court to conduct any evaluation in the case.
(9) Admissible evidence of child abuse or domestic violence shall be considered in any child custody or visitation case.
(10) No parent shall be deprived of custody, visitation, or contact with his or her child, nor restricted in such custody, visitation, or contact, nor shall such a child be placed in foster care, simply because that parent reasonably believes that his or her child is the victim of child abuse or the effects of domestic violence, and acts lawfully in response to such reasonable belief to protect the child or to obtain treatment for the child.
(11) No valid final order of protection or domestic violence restraining order rendered pursuant to the State's domestic violence or family violence protection statutes and filed with the State's protective order registry shall be violated by the award of custody or visitation to the perpetrator of domestic violence where such is prohibited by the domestic violence order of protection then in effect.
PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Conceived and Drafted by:
Richard Ducote, Esq.
1 Allegheny Sq # 455
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
(412) 322-0750
Ducotelaw@aol.com
42 United States Code § 5105a. Protective Parent Reform Act
This Act shall be known as the "Protective Parent Reform Act." The purpose of this Act is to correct the trend in child custody and visitation cases wherein abused children, and children in homes where domestic violence exists, are placed by courts in the custody of the abusive or violent parent with the protective parent's custody, visitation, and contact with the child limited.
For any State or public agency to receive any assistance under the provisions of §§5106, 5106a, 5106(c), or 5116, for fiscal year 2005 and any year thereafter, the State or the State in which the public agency applicant is situated must demonstrate that effective June 1, 2005, the following safeguards have been effected and implemented either by statutory enactment or court rule promulgated by the highest court in the State, with such enactment or court rule applicable statewide in every court having jurisdiction over child custody, parental visitation, parenting time, parenting plans, conservatorship of children, or any other issue involving the residence of a child and the contact between the child and his or her parents, incidental to or following separation or divorce, or in connection with a paternity case where the parents have were not married, to ensure that a parent who reasonably believes that his or her child is threatened by child abuse or domestic violence, perpetrated or allowed by the other parent is not punished by the court, or otherwise penalized by loss or limitation of custody, contact, or visitation with his or her child, or the child denied the custody and contact with that parent, for that parent's having such reasonable belief and for acting lawfully in accordance with such belief:
(1) The prohibition against ex parte contacts with the judge hearing a child custody or child visitation case, as defined and controlled by state law, shall be specifically made applicable to child custody and child visitation cases, and shall, in addition to the general applicability of the prohibition, specifically include contacts between judges and guardians ad litem, minor’s counsel, custody evaluators, mental health professionals, mediators, screeners, and other such persons traditionally participating in child custody and visitation cases.
(2) The roles of guardians ad litem, minors' counsel, and children's attorneys shall be limited to advocating for the wishes of the child at issue, and to participating in the court proceedings by presentation of evidence and argument in the same manner as a parent's attorney. Such persons shall be prohibited from substituting their own opinions and judgments for the wishes of the child, submitting evidence which would be excluded under the applicable evidence law if tendered by any other party, and in no case shall such person be deemed a quasi-judicial officer or be granted any fact-finding role. This provision shall not require a State to mandate an attorney to represent any child in custody or visitation cases, but shall only be interpreted to the limit the role of such person when provided.
(3) Parents shall be provided full and timely access to all custody and mental health evaluations and reports which are to be considered in any custody or visitation proceeding, including all underlying data for such evaluations and reports, and shall be afforded the opportunity to depose prior to the trial and to cross examine at trial any and all mental health or custody evaluators who will testify in a custody or visitation proceeding.
(4) No expert opinion or expert evidence attempting to discredit a parent's motivation for asserting that his or her child is abused or at risk of the effects of domestic violence committed by the other parent, or attempting to discredit a child's report of such abuse or violence, shall be allowed in a custody or visitation case unless that opinion or evidence is based on concepts and theories generally accepted by the scientific community and supported by credible and admissible evidence of facts which can be established independently of that expert's opinion.
(5) Due process shall be afforded all parents in such custody and visitation cases, and such custody and visitation decisions removing custody, visitation, or contact from a parent who believes or asserts that his or her child is the victim of abuse or the effects of domestic violence perpetrated by the other parent shall not be made on the basis of written declarations or affidavits, or without adequate written advance notice and the opportunity to be heard as defined by state and federal constitutional law, even on a purportedly emergency basis, simply because that parent holds that belief. Furthermore, no such parent shall lose custody, visitation, or contact with a child based only on the opinion of a mental health professional that such parent is at risk of unlawfully fleeing with the child, unless credible and admissible evidence independent of the professional's opinion establishes that parent's plan or intent to flee.
(6) Court sponsored mediation, conciliation, and intake screening programs shall not make recommendations or fact-finding reports to the judge regarding child custody, visitation, or contact unless all parties freely agree in advance of the transmittal of such report, and any parent shall have the right to contest the report.
(7) No findings by any child protection agency shall be considered res judicata or collateral estoppel, and shall not be considered by the court unless all parents are afforded the opportunity to challenge any such determination.
(8) Whenever child abuse or domestic violence is an issue in a child custody or visitation case, no mental health professional or child custody evaluator who lacks specialized training and experience in child abuse or domestic violence relevant to the specific allegations shall be appointed by the court to conduct any evaluation in the case.
(9) Admissible evidence of child abuse or domestic violence shall be considered in any child custody or visitation case.
(10) No parent shall be deprived of custody, visitation, or contact with his or her child, nor restricted in such custody, visitation, or contact, nor shall such a child be placed in foster care, simply because that parent reasonably believes that his or her child is the victim of child abuse or the effects of domestic violence, and acts lawfully in response to such reasonable belief to protect the child or to obtain treatment for the child.
(11) No valid final order of protection or domestic violence restraining order rendered pursuant to the State's domestic violence or family violence protection statutes and filed with the State's protective order registry shall be violated by the award of custody or visitation to the perpetrator of domestic violence where such is prohibited by the domestic violence order of protection then in effect.
National Census of Domestic Violence Services
To contact us Click HERE
In the State of Florida alone, on September 15, 2009, 42 out of 42 (or 100%,) of identified local domestic violence programs in Florida participated in the 2009 National Census of Domestic Violence Services with 3,097 Victims Served in One Day . 1,824 domestic violence victims found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing provided by local domestic violence programs. “One survivor wants to relocate to another state for more job opportunities but she can’t because of custody issues. Becoming economically secure is difficult.”
A complete report of the National Census of Domestic Violence Services can be viewed at : http://nnedv.org/resources/census/375-census-2009-report.html . The numbers are staggering.
United States: The National Network to End Domestic Violence released IN JUST ONE DAY:
This year, 25 states and territories achieved a 100% participation rate! For the full 2009 report and state summaries please go to http://www.nnedv.org/census
Our Thanks to The National Network to End Domestic Violence for all of the above information to subscribe to action alerts go to: http://nnedv.org/
A complete report of the National Census of Domestic Violence Services can be viewed at : http://nnedv.org/resources/census/375-census-2009-report.html . The numbers are staggering.
United States: The National Network to End Domestic Violence released IN JUST ONE DAY:
- 1,648 participating local domestic violence programs (83%)
- Assisted 65,321 adults and children through shelter, transitional housing, and advocacy
- Answered 23,045 hotline calls, over 16 calls every minute
- Trained 30,735 attendees at 1,468 community education sessions
- 9,280 requests for services went unmet because of a lack of resources or staffing. 60% of the unmet requests were for emergency shelter or transitional housing and 40% of the unmet requests were for non-residential services
- 17,445 Children under 18 spent the night of September 15, 2009 in a domestic violence shelter or transitional housing program - far more than the approximately 11,000 children who are born every day across the U.S.
This year, 25 states and territories achieved a 100% participation rate! For the full 2009 report and state summaries please go to http://www.nnedv.org/census
Our Thanks to The National Network to End Domestic Violence for all of the above information to subscribe to action alerts go to: http://nnedv.org/
No Way Out But One
To contact us Click HERE
No Way Out But One is a feature length documentary currently in post-production. It tells the story of an American woman accused of kidnapping her own children, who fled the country and became the first American woman to ever be granted asylum by the Government of the Netherlands, due to domestic violence. The 13-minute version presented here serves as a trailer for the feature length version and as documentary short in its own right.
Produced by Garland Waller
Produced by Garland Waller
Could Judge Peter McBrien Have Prevented Madeline's Murder?
To contact us Click HERE
Controversial Judge at the Center of A Tragic Death: Citizens Protest
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 18, 2011
CONTACT: Anne Hart 916-715-5243
Sacramento, CA - On Thursday, September 22, 2011, community members will hold a protest from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm at the Sacramento Superior Court, 720 9th Street, Sacramentoregarding the abject failure of Sacramento family court to protect children in custody disputes. The protest will begin on the corner of 9th and H Streets.
One judge, Sacramento Family Court Judge Peter McBrien, has been a focus of community scrutiny for over a decade for his lack of judgment and destructive decisions. He destroyed ancient oak trees on a nature preserve to obtain a better view from his home which earned him the moniker of "Chainsaw" and resulted in a felony charge that he pled down to a misdemeanor. Additionally, he received a public reprimand from the Commission on Judicial Performance. He then became personally embroiled in the divorce case of Ulf Carlsson, and went far out of his way to destroy Mr. Carlsson by ensuring he was fired from his job. Judge McBrien committed numerous ethical violations along the way and earned another reprimand. Battered mothers report that he consistently places children with substantiated molesters, batterers, violent alcoholics, and drug addicts. Now, Judge McBrien failed to protect a toddler, who was then murdered.
After a statewide AMBER Alert, two-year-old Madeline Layla Samaan-Fay was found near Placerville, CA in her father's vehicle. She and her father Mourad Samaan were both dead.
Samaan had a pattern of not returning his daughter Madeline from visits and had told her mother that he was taking the child to Oregon against the court order. Prior to the toddler's death, Judge McBrien had refused to grant an ex parte request by Madeline's mother to order law enforcement to locate the father and child, and to place Samaan on supervised visits. Judge McBrien had a perfect opportunity to prevent this tragedy, but refused to assist the mother Marcia Fay, a California Deputy Attorney General, in locating and protecting her child.
California judges have a pattern of not believing women and children, and are trained to minimize concerns of mothers, according to Judge DeAnn Salcide (Ret), founder of Judicial Action Watch Society. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Judicial-Action-Watch-Society/219653241395520
The United States has a pattern of not protecting women and children. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has sharply rebuked the United States for failing to protect women and children in the Gonzalez v. United States decision in August 2011, stating that the U.S. practices discrimination and violation of the right to equality.
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2011/92-11eng.htm
We can begin changing these destructive patterns by demanding that Judge McBrien be removed from family court and from any position that gives him authority over vulnerable children.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 18, 2011
CONTACT: Anne Hart 916-715-5243
Sacramento, CA - On Thursday, September 22, 2011, community members will hold a protest from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm at the Sacramento Superior Court, 720 9th Street, Sacramentoregarding the abject failure of Sacramento family court to protect children in custody disputes. The protest will begin on the corner of 9th and H Streets.
One judge, Sacramento Family Court Judge Peter McBrien, has been a focus of community scrutiny for over a decade for his lack of judgment and destructive decisions. He destroyed ancient oak trees on a nature preserve to obtain a better view from his home which earned him the moniker of "Chainsaw" and resulted in a felony charge that he pled down to a misdemeanor. Additionally, he received a public reprimand from the Commission on Judicial Performance. He then became personally embroiled in the divorce case of Ulf Carlsson, and went far out of his way to destroy Mr. Carlsson by ensuring he was fired from his job. Judge McBrien committed numerous ethical violations along the way and earned another reprimand. Battered mothers report that he consistently places children with substantiated molesters, batterers, violent alcoholics, and drug addicts. Now, Judge McBrien failed to protect a toddler, who was then murdered.
After a statewide AMBER Alert, two-year-old Madeline Layla Samaan-Fay was found near Placerville, CA in her father's vehicle. She and her father Mourad Samaan were both dead.
Samaan had a pattern of not returning his daughter Madeline from visits and had told her mother that he was taking the child to Oregon against the court order. Prior to the toddler's death, Judge McBrien had refused to grant an ex parte request by Madeline's mother to order law enforcement to locate the father and child, and to place Samaan on supervised visits. Judge McBrien had a perfect opportunity to prevent this tragedy, but refused to assist the mother Marcia Fay, a California Deputy Attorney General, in locating and protecting her child.
California judges have a pattern of not believing women and children, and are trained to minimize concerns of mothers, according to Judge DeAnn Salcide (Ret), founder of Judicial Action Watch Society. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Judicial-Action-Watch-Society/219653241395520
The United States has a pattern of not protecting women and children. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has sharply rebuked the United States for failing to protect women and children in the Gonzalez v. United States decision in August 2011, stating that the U.S. practices discrimination and violation of the right to equality.
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2011/92-11eng.htm
We can begin changing these destructive patterns by demanding that Judge McBrien be removed from family court and from any position that gives him authority over vulnerable children.
###
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)