kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Custody Evaluations / July 28th - NonViolent Action / Your FEEDBACK on the MDM and reform.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (webmaster@AKidsRight.Org)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 12:14:42 EDT

This is a message from a mailing list,
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.

Good People & People of Faith:

This message contains:
1. The Hall of Shame - Custody Evaluations?
2. July 28th - NonViolent Action resumes.
3. The Million Dad March - your FEEDBACK!
4. Reform Goals - your FEEDBACK!

1. The Hall of Shame - Custody Evaluations?
If you haven't been there recently, please check out the recent
stories at our Hall of Shame, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/shame.htm

At present we have almost 100 detailed submissions by parents who have
had a Court interfere with their relationship with their children.

Probably one of the most frustrating items a parent has to go through
is a psychological "Custody Evaluation."  In many cases there are no
hard facts. The evaluation serves to "predict" future behavior and what
will be in the "child's best interest."  Some Judges place a great
deal of weight in these since they are supposed to be "scientific &
unbiased." But as many of you know, there is "bias" anytime two people
interact.  Again, as with a single Judge, we have a situation where we
expect the Psychologist to not be "biased." The evaluations are rarely
recorded.  The "raw data" is not available for peer review (which
obviously makes it very difficult to dispute/review the findings).

Follow the link below to read a story of an eval gone wrong and an
actual letter to the Judge from a Psychologist reversing an earlier
recommendation, but a little too late.... the story of James and
Andrew Quirk, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/shame8.htm#quirk

We welcome your FEEDBACK on this issue.  In our DRAFT Family Rights
Act, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/act.htm -- the emphasis is on
"demonstrated conduct", not "predictive conduct."  If you have not
demonstrated you are a serious threat to your children (for which
facts should be presentable to a jury), government may not interfere.
What do you think?

2. July 28th - NonViolent Action resumes
Our efforts to get Senator Hillary R. Clinton (NY) to meet with
parents hurt by our nation's family law system and call for Congressional
hearings into the need for reform -- resume on July 28th outside
her offices in the Syracuse Federal Building.

For more details see http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr
Your participation is welcome!

3. The Million Dad March - your FEEDBACK!
The FEEDBACK below was in response to a recent list message, you
can see that message at:


> You are sending me these e-mails and I'm a mom fighting to see my
> son.I'm alittle offended.It should be about both parents.And the
> funny thing is my son's father is in and out of jail and our court
> system seems to think that's a better life and I'm fighting to prove
> otherwise. Please don't send me anymore messages.

... I did take your address off the list.  We do try to keep the list
about both parents and that is definitely what the site is about (we
get more father's writing in or public activity at times since they
are more affected in general).  Honestly, we also get father's writing
in to say we are "too pro woman" also.
Sorry to hear about your struggle with your son, you are welcome to
submit it to our Hall of Shame page,

If you have time, I would welcome your feedback on our Family Rights
Act, http://www.AKIdsRight.Org/act.htm -- and how it would have
influence your present situation.

--- "Gerald Gauthier" <>

> Good writeup, John. Thanks and keep up the good work!

--- "William Dolan" <>

> It was good to see you on Fathers' Day.  Your post mortem comment
> was of interest.  You are correct that the day flopped a bit.  I
> don't know who organized it.
> Here in DC we get to see a number of the national fathers' rights
> figures, who eventually come here to speak and be heard.  Stuart
> Miller is alive and well in the movement today, not just in the
> 1980's; so is David Levy; Ron Henry bulldozed presumptive joint
> custody into a DC statute over the objection of a lot of judges, and
> he is still around; there is quite a list of movement leaders.  One
> finds that out when they all want to speak at once.  
> In late June I spoke before the Virginia Judicial Council, a group
> of judicial leaders that create judicial policy in Virginia.  When
> we try to improve things, it seems like there is no progress, but
> really it is just not perceptible yet.  However, remember the quote:
> "A force, consistently applied in a directed fashion over time, will
> bring results certain."
> When I first met you, I thought that your walks through the
> courthouses with the signs or photos were not in violation of any of
> the buildings management rules.  Since I work with federal buildings
> management people, I feel that violating such a rule, if it exists,
> will just create problems for you, so I encourage you to preserve
> your organizational talent for your good work. and not go back to
> Jamesville.

... Thanks for the updated info and the words of caution!

---"Steven Kemp" <> 

> I am writing you because I have heard good things of your group and
> actions.  I could not agree more that the March was ineffective.  At
> best.  I don't understand why fathers do not insist on personal
> accountability.  I am soon to go public with the misdeeds of the
> mother, judge, attorney, clerk with home addresses and pictures.
> Write me back. Let me know if any other father has gone public in
> this manner with the judge.  Steve Kemp.

You are welcome to submit your story to our Hall of Shame page,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/shame.htm, and perhaps the publicity will

Yes, I have heard of folks trying to hold people "personally"
responsible and sometimes they win when it is a VERY clear violation
of conduct/standards.  It is worth doing, folks need to be held
accountable.  But a lot of times it can become "bitter" and it may not
be as useful in the overall reform effort.  The problem with our
Family Law is not really bad parents or Judges (although they are out
there) -- but it is really a system that just does not protect your
right to be a parent.  WE have given judges way too much flexibility
and that needs to change.

--- Efrain Rodriguez <>

> I am Efrain Rodriguez, Jr. I am Vice President of the Father's
> Right's Association of NYS and President of the Hudson Valley and
> NYC chapters. On Father's Day we helped coordinate and took part in
> the first of it's kind ever in New York State Father's Day Parade
> which took place in Poughkeepsie, NY.

> Many of the local and civic groups took part, and the day was a
> spectacular event. I have a copy of the tape that was produced by
> men's Net, a local cable show. I can make you a copy of the tape and
> send it to you. Please let your list know that this event was held
> to celebrate Dad, and many Dads and their children took part,
> including many of our members. Local politicians marched, including
> the Mayor of Poughkeepsie. Look forward to hearing from you.

> Efrian Rodriguez, Jr. President Father's Rights association of NYS
> Hudson Valley and NYC chapters box 743 Mahopac, NY 10541
> 1-888-991-8867/1-845-279-8916

--- "Brennan, Robert J" <>

> Once again.  Stay away from John.  Stay far away.

> His idea of marches, includes obstructing others rights and freedoms
> for the sole purpose of sending him to jail.  He believes that if he
> can stand on a soap box in front of a judge, he is making progress.
> Nothing that John has done has accomplished one thing for fathers
> involvement with their children.  He is an embarrassment to anyone
> interested in promoting proper fatherhood and parenting principles.

4. Reform Goals - your FEEDBACK!

--- Daniel Lee <>

> >It was surprising how vague some of the goals are after you get past better 
> >equality and less government interference in family life.
> I think these are the core goals we need to build our organization
> on:

> 1. Parents have equal custody.  This is done by designating one
> parent as the primary custodian for a set period of time, and then
> this switches to the other parent for a substantially equal amount.
> A third Tennessee appeals case just had this, and in this one
> custody alternated weekly.  We prefer to see longer time periods
> such as yearly or more (with substantial parenting time), for
> increased stability for the child.  Once you have equal custody,
> then parents will be treated equally under the law with regards to
> child support, domestic violence and child abuse allegations, etc.
> It's the core of reform, and the result of a properly argued
> constitutional challenge.  It's happening in some Tennessee courts
> now, and we are slowly and surely building an organization around
> this concept.  If you haven't seen this, last month the Memphis
> paper published a guest editorial about equal custody:

> 2. Child support set at the cost of raising the child, and then
> factor in the division of parenting time.  One estimate of child
> costs is $600 per month.  This is then apportioned for visitation,
> such as:
> (100% = $600) - (0% = $0) = $600 in ordered child support
> (90% = $540) - (10% = $60) = $480 in ordered child support
> (75% = $450) - (25% = $150) = $300 in ordered child support
> (55% = $330) - (45% = $270) = $60 in ordered child support
> (50% = $300) - (50% = $300) = $0 in ordered child support
> With that simple and fair system, you don't even need an attorney.
> Second and third children would be factored in at lesser amounts
> such as $400, $250, etc.

--- Chuck Evans <>

> I cannot believe that you and the individuals on your list ... know
> or say nothing about the Galluzzo Dayton federal constitutional
> challenge to Ohio law case and the efforts of certain persons in
> Ohio that would effectuate change, i.e., a rebuttable presumption of
> EQUAL legal and physical custody, that would impact every state in
> the country as the case is on the merits and the same evidentiary
> standard of best interests is common in every state law.
> Briefs were submitted in January and pending decision.  And the fact
> that the interest level is so low and that there are so many
> splintered groups with no stated goals is pathetic and the reason
> why parental rights for fathers are ignored and violated every day
> of the year in every state court in the country. The Ohio group (and
> this is not the PACE group, but there are a few affiliated with PACE
> (Parents And Children for Equality) formerly FACE (Fathers And
> Children for Equality) and formerly Fathers and Children for Equal
> Justice started in 1975-6 in Columbus, Ohio-one of the oldest
> organizations for your history update) has a clear focus, a clear
> goal, and has introduced legislation that addresses the issues in
> the Galluzzo case, and the fact that the federal magistrate
> certified a constitutional question to the state of Ohio challenging
> their constitutional compliance with federal law, which was also the
> impetus for Ohio legislator Representative Ron Young to get 19
> cosponsors to his bill being introduced in the fall.
> And this is due to the tireless 7 year effort of only a couple of
> persons in Ohio, but your national organizations don't even mention
> them-because there is a total failure to communicate due to the
> fractured nature of the duplicative and essentially worthless
> existing organizations that have effectively and cumulatively
> accomplished very little.
> I know that without the tireless effort of one or two, you would not
> even be made aware of this message.

> Chuck Evans
> former associate director of FACE, now an independent PITA at the federal and 
> state courts
> Columbus, Ohio

.. thanks for the update on Galluzzo, actually we have mentioned it on
the list and have even allocated a link to him in the "Court Action"
area of our web site.  Unfortunately, we don't always get updates...


--- Brad Herman <>

> I am not sure if you are aware of this doctrine or not, but I'd like
> to at least give you some idea of an answer to this VERY IMPORTANT
> Is control over your family a "state's rights" issue?  Is "family" a
> right reserved to the people?  Does it make sense that basic issues
> of family are different depending in what state you live in?
> The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially states that the federal
> government has no jurisdiction over the rulings of state courts
> regarding child abuse and neglect.  This doctrine even has been
> upheld in certain cases (except for Calabretta Vs. Floyd, 2000) in
> which there were clear violations of federal laws by CPS and
> reporters to CPS.
> I learned about this doctrine when I was composing my opposition to
> the defendants' motion for summary judgment (based on their
> "qualified immunity"---don't you just "love" how people can commit
> such severe atrocities against innocent families and then "hide"
> behind their immunity?).  Since I have barely any economic resources
> (I'm a medical student), I had to be my own attorney in suing the
> social worker and doctor who reported me to CPS.  Thus, I had to
> learn about these laws all in a period of 6 days (they had 6 weeks
> to file the motion, I had 6 days to oppose it--go figure).  The
> social worker and doctor's statements and actions towards my wife
> suggested clear violation of Title II, Section 504 of the Americans
> with Disabilities Act.  However, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
> it most likely will not be considered when the judge decides whether
> or not the social worker and the doctor acted with malice (which
> would defeat the qualified immunity).

--- "Bobby Mountain" <>

> I'm fresh to the fray, but I've been involved in the Southern rights
> movement for several years.  You really should get past the
> KKK/black thing and read some real history.  If not for the Brave
> Southerners standing up for their Black brethren, Abe Lincoln would
> have sent all the black folk back to Africa.  He bought property in
> Liberia.  Its not your fault for your false knowledge of history.
> You and I were not taught the truth by our Federal education system.

Not quite sure what you are talking about above?  The primary focus of
the site is NonViolent Action, in our "history" section we have some
examples of action by Gandhi and Martin Luther King,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm -- are there some errors

> My point here is the fact that our whole life is controlled by the
> Federal Government.  There is not room for the individual, and this
> includes our children. We are not fighting one part of the system,
> but all. If this was not a Federal fight, then pick a fight with one
> state and overcome.  The state is backed up by the Fed.  Costing a
> local District Attorney his position at the ballot box would be a
> small step in the right direction. But he is backed up by the
> Fed/State and the Department of Children and Family Services. Go
> back to the US Constitution.  To be free, live free.  To live free
> we have to remind the Government that they serve us .  To prove
> this, we have to vote some people out. 2 We could take a good case
> and make a class action suit.  Not civil rights.  Unalienable
> rights. God given rights given to us in our Constitution. We are
> given the individual sovereignty over government by the election
> process.

> As parents we have the unalienable rights to raise our children.
> Civil right allows for Government intervention, that's why we're in
> the fix we are now.  The media and NAACP scream civil rights but we
> get more debt ridden and separated as a people daily.  If the media
> wasn't in charge for the Government we could very well all get
> along.  If we weren't fighting each other, we would be correcting
> the slack in the Government.  They don't want that!  There is no
> quick fix for the family in America.  I personally don't think
> fighting the current system will work.  It's to entrenched.  We have
> to across the board claim our unalienable rights, starting with our
> children.  They are our children.  Listen to this. They are our
> children, not the states.'  Civil rights gives the state the right
> to protect children, as equal adults, subject to the Government, not
> the parent.  Any law that is in conflict to the Constitution, can be
> deemed unlawful and should.

> When we go to court we should demand our Constutional unalienable
> rights to parent our children.  Any other argument would contain
> civil right mentality and the parent will lose to the power of the
> state. Quite simply, any so called law that limits the individuals
> unalienable rights are unlawful laws.  All law enforcement,
> attorneys, judges, etc., are sworn to protect the Constitution.
> This will be a tuff battle, but if we all come forward with this
> battle we will get the attention we will need to start the real
> battle.  The battle to get our freedom back. Raise our children in
> the pursuit of happiness.  Bobby Mountain

Yes, I think we agree on the same things. We have a draft Family
Rights Act at the site, I would welcome your feedback on that,

To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 03:12:00 EST