A Child's Right

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

2009-12-23T10:29:15-05:00

Michael A. Polemeni
PO BOX 13149
Huntsville, AL 35802

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)
1-800-992-1190
http://www.alfra.org
Alabama Children need your help - Reform Alabama Family Law

I do not practice law and do not give legal advice. Information given to you by me is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and by contacting me, no attorney-client relationship will be created between us. At no time do I review your answers for legal sufficiency, draw legal conclusions, provide legal advice or apply the law to the facts of your particular situation.
My statements is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.

Michigan Child Support System Needs Investigation

2009-12-13T08:58:47-05:00

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4442

Much of Michigan Child Support Debt is not for Child Support but a State Surcharge

December 11th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
According to this article, a good (albeit unstated) portion of Michigan's child support
arrearages aren't child support arrearages at all, but interest due on
unpaid amounts (Detroit News, 12/7/09). In 1996, the Michigan
legislature passed a law requiring non-custodial parents to pay
interest on any arrearages in child support. It set the rate at 8%
which was to be compounded, presumably yearly. I don't know where they
came up with that figure, but it's significantly more than, for example
the return on highly-rated municipal bonds, U.S. Treasury bonds, etc.
And the fact that they allowed the amounts to be compounded added
insult to injury.

My comments:
-------

Thank you for bringing the issues in Michigan to light.

A few more points:

* For children or custodial parents on welfare, "child support " that
"goes to the child" actually goes to the state to repay those
expenses. If it's set too high the child is harmed because the
non-custodial parent can't help with the child's real day to day
expenses.

* There is substantial evidence of ongoing and systemic fraud in calculating child support in Michigan.

* There is evidence of systemic application of illegal automatic income
imputation, a known violation of Michigan law under Michigan supreme
court rulings for 10 years.

* There is evidence that child custody determinations are racist. Only
3/5ths as many African-American fathers get recommendations for sole or
joint custody, as compared to White Non-Hispanic fathers, based on
county to county data. Racial data is not available, and would likely
be substantially worse.

* There is evidence that courts are altering recordings and manipulating official records in violation of federal laws.

* The 2008 MCSFM (Michigan Child Support Formula Manual) was changed to
make parenting time offsets insignificant. A parent who directly cares
for a child 79 overnights + 26 weekdays only gets 2% of the family
income available under state law for that child for his/her support
efforts.

* There is evidence that courts are knowingly violating and evading federal laws on garnishment limits.

* FOC form 10a makes child support fraud easy, and there is evidence
that it's used in a coercive manner to force parents to give up various
rights (e.g. the ability to object ot move away decisions, later
modification of child support, etc).

* Google "Carol Rhodes Friend of the Court Video" and watch it. She worked there and saw it all.

* All of this is documented at scribd dot com slash DougDante.

But no Republican or Democrat politician is really willing to fundamentally change the way child support is calculated or enforced because they don’t want to look like they are soft on all those dead beat dads out there.

Heck they figure that you cheatin’ abusive dads out there deserve to have to pay bloated support orders after all if you’d just been a good husband or boyfriend she would have never kicked you to the curb or it is your own damn fault ‘cause you left her for some other chick. Finally these statist politicians either think that it is a man’s responsibility to care for his ex and their children or that women are the superior gender and deserve to be supported at what the state determines is best. Think about it, doesn’t most republocrats believe that it is “fair” to have a graduated income tax and property tax?

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

MICHIGAN PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP PROTECTION BALLOT PROPOSAL RESEARCH

2009-12-09T06:34:33-05:00

Please respond if you:

1. Believe that we should put together a ballot proposal signature drive in
Michigan or your state to change the state family law to protect the
parent-child relationship in the case of divorce or separation?

2. If so, are you willing to help by recruiting others to gather signatures?

3. Are you willing to gather signatures?

4. Are you willing to contribute funds towards the cost of this effort?

5. What state and county are you willing to be active in?

Ballot will be similar to this bill: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5114

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

Jeff Kapteyn on Paternity Fraud

2009-12-04T22:09:27-05:00

Below is an article about paternity FRAUD and my comments about such. She replied with a very gender bias reply. I have replyed to her comments below in the green highlight but it still needs to be approved before its posted. I figured a few of you might have some wise advice on this issue that might help her see the light. Her blog tends to have a lot of great info in it.

http://jeannehannah.typepad.com/blog_jeanne_hannah_traver/2009/11/paternity-fraud-duped-dads-whats-the-answer.html

I wonder what women would say if the laws were reversed? For example:

A) A married man who slept with a woman besides his wife could choose to get full custody of a child born to his mistress upon birth and completely shut the biological mother out of the child's life on the basis that he was married to another woman at the time the child was born.

B) A married man is having an affair with another woman. He convinces his wife they should go to a fertility clinic, and he then has a fertilized egg from his mistress implanted in his wife without her knowing it is not her egg. He divorces his wife shortly after the child is born, and his ex wife discovers the truth about who the child's biological mother is. The man then marries his former mistress, gets full custody of the child, and his ex wife is forced to pay child support to him and the biological mother of the child.

(The hypotheticals are not precise mirror image reversals of the situations men face of course, but they do illustrate the point)

I wonder how many women would agree that "There is no right answer" or "These are tough questions"? Actually, there are right answers, and these are not particularly "tough" questions. The mere fact that a given law provides benefits to individuals of one gender at the expense of individuals of the other gender doesn't make it a tough question.

A couple of her statements beg the question:

"On the other hand, if the husband is allowed to 'disestablish' parentage, there is another critical and potentially devastating consequence for a child. A child raised for years knowing only one father may suddenly be deprived of the only father he/she has ever known and/or may feel rejected or unwanted."

First, she's confusing the legal issue of disestablishing parentage with the consequences to a child if a parent chooses not to have a relationship with a child that is not really their child. You can't force either a man or woman to have a parental relationship with a child against their will. A parent can refuse to have a relationship with a child under the law right now, and the child will feel rejected or unwanted. The only thing the law can do is force an unwilling duped "parent" to support a child that is not theirs. A piece of paper filed in a courthouse saying a person is a "parent" will not spare the child from rejection.

Second, the mother is the one who has control of the deception from the beginning, and she is the only one who has the ability to avoid the potential negative impact on the child. It would make sense to provide a disincentive for her to perpetrate deception since she is the one who has the ability to avoid the negative consequences to the child.

I'd agree that these situations are exensive to resolve under the existing law, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Of course, the state bar of Michigan consistently lobbies against any changes in family law that would reduce judicial discretion.

As one family law attorney has said: "'Unfortunately, discretion equals fighting . . . The way spousal support works now is like the `divorce lawyer full-employment act´ because we spend so much time fighting over it, and the only people benefiting from it are the divorce lawyers.'" Moss, Susan M, "Still No Bed of Roses", ABA Journal, June 2008.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/still_no_bed_of_roses/

Does anyone really believe it's a coincidence that the state bar of Michigan consistently opposes any changes in the law that would reduce judicial discretion?

Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff. Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

Subject: [Update] Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc.

2009-11-29T20:24:41-05:00

I am happy to report along with a very large number of internal
organizational accomplishments, Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc.
has been listed in the IRS Publication 78 as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charity.

Search for Charities, Online Version of Publication 78
Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is a list of organizations eligible to
receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. This online version is
offered to help you conduct a more efficient search of these organizations.
IRS Non-profit Search
_____

Earn $50 for yourself and $25 for Fathers for Equal Rights of America, Inc

If you would like to earn yourself $50 and another $25 for Fathers for Equal
Rights of America, Inc. simply open a TCF bank account and list FERA as the
referrer on your account application. TCF Bank is currently running this
promotion and it works as advertised:

Sincerely,

Dan Diebolt

Congrats Dan! This is exciting news for Michigan!!

Robert Pedersen

<http://www.parentalrights.org/> Support the Parental Rights Amendment

RADAR ALERT: "First they ignore you, ..."

2009-11-25T16:31:11-05:00

RADAR ALERT:

"First they ignore you, ..."

Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1sym> 1 publication
"Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights'
Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2sym> 2

This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be
accused of is objective reporting.

On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's
Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights'
groups go mainstream"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3sym> 3 that adds no
new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X
article to Salon's readers.

Since the Double X article appeared there have been several analyses of its
flaws, the most recent being Cathy Young's article in Forbes: "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4sym> 4 which says:

"More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet
Radcliffe Richards wrote, 'No feminist whose concern for women stems from a
concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest
to be the advantage of women.' Joyce's article is a stark example of
feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage,
rather than justice or truth."

In "Journalistic Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication
'Double X'" <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5sym> 5,
RADAR's Mark Rosenthal explained how the article had misrepresented his
comments and also took issue with the article's characterization of Murray
Straus as someone "who has written extensively on female violence," saying:

"The characterization of Straus as someone who has written extensively on
female violence is like characterizing Susan B. Anthony as someone who wrote
extensively on temperance - true but misleading because of what it leaves
out. Straus has devoted his professional career to the study of all forms of
family violence - parent-to-child, child-to-parent, sibling-to-sibling, as
well as partner violence in all its configurations - male-to-female,
female-to-male, and mutual. He has never focused exclusively on female
violence."

And in a series of articles beginning with "Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize
the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6sym> 6, Glenn Sacks
critiques the quality of the reporting, saying:

"The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the [men's and fathers]
movement, and also quote and misquote me. ... I specifically, repeatedly,
and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers'
movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was
determined to jam it in there anyway."

Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they
ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon
attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1.
Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far.
Let's keep it up!

_____

1 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1anc> "Double X
closes up shop",
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/11/16/double_x_folds/index.html

2 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2anc> "'Men's
Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective.", Slate.com,
http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/mens-rights-groups-have-become-
frighteningly-effective

3 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3anc> 'Men's
rights' groups go mainstream, Salon.com,
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/05/mens_rights/index.ht
ml

4 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4anc> "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too",
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/mens-rights-feminism-equality-violence-opin
ions-contributors-cathy-young.html

5 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5anc> "Journalistic
Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication 'Double X'",
http://www.breakingthescience.org/DoubleXMisrepresentation.php

6 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6anc> "Slate.com &
Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)",
http://glennsacks.com/blog//?p=4359 <http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4359>

_____

Date of RADAR Release: November 23, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting - is a
non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve
the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.
http://www.mediaradar.org

A Kid's Right News

2009-11-13T06:19:50-05:00

Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 5:50 PM

AKidsRight.Org - All the information in our messages if FREE for reuse as
you desire. Subscribe/unsubscribe info at end of this message.
=========================================
Good People & People of Faith,

This message has info on:

1. Court takes newborn from obese Mother - best for the kids!
2. Why risk jail? - ask Donald Tenn.
3. What's your goal - shared parenting sounds nice?
4. Support? System Down - discounts on movie preview!

1. Court takes newborn from obese Mother - best for the kids!
----------------------------------------------------------
[ This is a good article. Should social services have that much power
over family life. I don't think so (see below in #3). How about just
'offering' help from the community - no threats allowed?

OR - How about taking kids from people that smoke at home - easy! How
about taking kids from people who: never donate to charity, never done
anything to help anyone else, and have also been convicted of welfare
fraud and are tax cheats -- just bad examples!? - John ]

Submitted by: Rev. Gregory Allen Smart Sr <cpsvictim@gmail.com>

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27585-San-Diego-Courts-Examiner~y2009m10d
29-Courts-Briefly-Take-Obese-Mothers-Newborn-Child-Overweight-Family-Raises-
Issue
<http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27585-San-Diego-Courts-Examiner%7Ey2009m
10d29-Courts-Briefly-Take-Obese-Mothers-Newborn-Child-Overweight-Family-Rais
es-Issue>

2. Why risk jail? - ask Donald Tenn.
------------------------------------
[ Many of you have heard of Donald Tenn <donaldtenn@yahoo.com>, he
has been active organizing F4J in the U.S. and also participated in
hanging a banner off a crane outside a Ohio State football game. He
is now facing trial on some serious charges for that...

Why would he risk jail. I encourage you to follow the story below.
Great pictures of him and his little girl, Madison -- definitely
worth the risk! - John]

Submitted by Teri Stoddard <teri.sharedparentingworks@gmail.com>

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d4-V
AWA-facilitates-and-funds-illegal-parental-child-abduction--part-one
<http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d
4-VAWA-facilitates-and-funds-illegal-parental-child-abduction--part-one>

3. What's your goal - shared parenting sounds nice?
----------------------------------------------------

> Children should have the right to have both parents involved in the
> daily lives. With the exceptions that if either parent would harm
> the child or allow someone else to harm them, they should not be. If
> both parents love and care about their children then we believe both
> should be in their children's lives.

Maybe stronger words are needed. One bite of the apple is 'sharing'
and so is seeing your child every other weekend, or less if we don't
think that is best. Who is going to measure if I "love" my child or
have shown the correct amount of "caring"? Sounds like the same
system we have now?

Should we perhaps consider, the only way to truly have 'both' parents
is two have two EQUAL parents. Whether they are good, average, or
poor parents? This may sound radical, but I don't have to prove my
"love" for my child to anyone to be an EQUAL parent.

Couldn't it be simpler? We are EQUAL, unless a unanimous jury verdict
in a criminal trial finds us guilty of intentionally trying to harm
our kids with malintent? Is this too bold a standard? It seems it
would get rid of a lot of family court fights about who cares most or
what's best. It would also make the noble goals of more mediation
actually work -- because you have equal parties.

http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
http://www.NationalPLC.Org/

4. Support? System Down - discounts on movie preview!
-----------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Angelo Lobo <info@supportthemovie.com>

Thank you for supporting this project! We Are now offering the
official T-Shirt worn at the Peach Tree Film Festival along with a 60%
DISCOUNT OFF the "Sneak Peek" DVD in hopes to raise awareness to these
issues. BUY-IT NOW and pass it to your legislators, judges, lawyers,
organization and friends. Every thing helps.

Please use the code (supporter) for an additional discount at check out.
Thank You.

http://www.shop.supportthemovie.com/product.sc?productId=6
<http://www.shop.supportthemovie.com/product.sc?productId=6&sourceCode=suppo
rter> &sourceCode=supporter

[ Very good video from a parent in New Jersey: We won't enforce you
seeing the kids, but keep paying the money! - John ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zXaOj9bZ4

--
John Murtari
__________________________________________________________
Coordinator AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
(315) 944-0999(x-211) http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
=========================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
---
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter

Term-Limit Justices, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings

2009-10-30T06:32:17-04:00

Term-Limit Justices, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings
by Mark R. Levin
Posted Dec 19, 2006
This is the sixth in an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Mark R. Levin, who served as chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department, addresses the Supreme Court.

President Ronald Reagan was a limited-government conservative who firmly believed in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and in the representative form of government that the Constitution set up.

Unfortunately, like other Republican Presidents before and after him, Reagan’s efforts were, for the most part, stymied by the subsequent behavior of certain of his own appointees. As a consequence, the Supreme Court remains a threat to the Constitution and representative government.

Reagan did not fail for lack of trying, however. He did his best to appoint justices who shared his judicial philosophy. Over two terms, Reagan filled three vacancies and elevated conservative William Rehnquist to chief justice. He nominated the great Antonin Scalia to replace Rehnquist as an associate justice. But two Reagan appointees—Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy (his third choice after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg)—would become huge disappointments.

When Reagan left office, the Supreme Court was still controlled by a majority of activist justices, as it is today.

I believe the Supreme Court is so broken it cannot be fixed simply by naming seemingly good candidates to the court, then hoping they vote like originalists during their life-long terms.

Institutional Reform

The Supreme Court needs to be reformed as an institution. It needs systemic solutions. Two I favor are limiting the terms of justices and giving Congress the power to veto a Supreme Court decision with a super-majority vote in both houses. Both reforms would require constitutional amendments. But it is time for conservative political leaders to start advocating them aggressively and making the case for why they are needed to the voters.

Originalists in the Reagan mold believe the federal government possesses only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the role of the courts is strictly limited. Their job is neither to make laws nor amend the Constitution but to interpret the laws and the Constitution as written, guided by the plain meaning of the words and the intent of the Framers.

“Judges are not to overturn the will of legislative majorities absent a violation of a constitutional right, as those rights were understood by the Framers,” Judge Robert Bork once explained. “[J]udges may look to the text, structure, and history of the Constitution, but are prohibited from inventing extra-constitutiona l rights.”

Bork himself paid a high price for fidelity to this principle, and the Reagan Administration’s experience with his nomination helps illustrate why reform of the Supreme Court itself is needed.

When Reagan nominated Bork to the Court in 1987, liberal politicians and their allies in the media and in special-interest groups targeted him for character assassination. His views were systematically mischaracterized and maligned.

Even though Bork had been a law professor at Yale and had served with distinction as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, four members of an American Bar Association review panel had the audacity to rate him “not qualified” to serve on the Supreme Court.

What they really meant is that they feared Bork’s intellectual power and commitment to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Left's Desperation

The liberal elite are desperate to keep the Supreme Court on their side to advance liberal policy priorities that lack the popular support to win approval from state legislatures or Congress. It was not elected lawmakers who expelled God from the public square, conferred due process rights on al Qaeda terrorists and forced states to educate illegal aliens. It was unelected justices on the Supreme Court. For decades, this is the way the American left has won its most important political battles—not at the ballot box, but in court.

Because this is so, the liberal establishment will do whatever it can to stop the confirmation of originalist justices. If it cannot stop the confirmation, it will attempt to seduce the justice into its own ranks once he is sitting on the court. As I wrote in Men in Black, President Nixon clearly understood this when he was trying to decide whether to nominate Harry Blackmun to replace Justice Abe Fortas after the Senate had rejected Nixon’s first two choices for that vacancy.

Blackmun later recalled that Nixon asked him, “What kind of woman is Mrs. Blackmun?” When Blackmun wondered what this question was getting at, Nixon said, “She will be wooed by the Georgetown crowd. Can she withstand that kind of wooing?”

Blackmun contended she could. But, later, when Blackmun was contemplating whether the Constitution protected a right to privacy that encompassed a right to abortion, Mrs. Blackmun turned out to be the best-placed lobbyist for the pro-abortion movement. As Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong revealed in The Brethren, the justice’s wife told one of Blackmun’s pro-abortion clerks: “You and I are working on the same thing. Me at home and you at work.”

The result was Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade opinion, which took the abortion issue away from state legislatures, where it had always been, and elevated abortion to a constitutional right.

After the eventually disappointing nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the first Supreme Court vacancy of the Reagan presidency, the Reagan Administration developed a very good system for vetting judges. But even this system did not always succeed.

Potential Reagan nominees were not subjected to a litmus test, but they were carefully interviewed about their overall judicial philosophy. The guide for this interview was the Constitution itself. Anthony Kennedy got through the interview.

On the surface, Kennedy looked good. He was an intelligent man who had compiled a good record serving in the hostile, liberal environment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. On the West Coast, Kennedy hadn’t drifted noticeably left. But in Washington, D.C., he did. He wrote the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas—holding that same-sex sodomy was a protected constitutional right. As part of his reasoning, Kennedy pointed to the European Court of Human Rights view on the subject.

Kennedy’s decision in that case was a classic example of judicial activism. He started with the result he wanted, and then went looking for a basis to justify it. In the end, he manufactured one.

Senate Democrats have made it even more difficult to achieve a majority originalist court with their widespread and unconstitutional use of the filibuster. Republicans will likely need a 60-vote Senate majority, or more, which would be a very difficult accomplishment.

While I believe the Supreme Court is long overdue for systemic reform, the requirement of amending the Constitution to achieve both term limits and the legislative veto would be a very difficult task. But unless we begin making the case now, explaining the necessity of the amendments to the public, we will never solve this threat to the system and process of government enshrined in the Constitution.

Putting term limits on justices is not a radical idea. It would actually help restore the balance the Constitution envisioned between the three branches of the federal government. With term limits, the Supreme Court would remain an independent body, but they would allow for the replacement of justices on a timely basis, rather than waiting for them to die or set their own retirement date. And if justices are going to use their positions to set policy and, in essence, participate in the political process without the benefit of standing for election, there really is no reason for them to serve for life.

Giving Congress a veto over Supreme Court decisions would also help restore the balance between the court and the legislature. If it took a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to veto a decision, such vetoes would not happen often. But it does allow the people, through their elected branches, to have the last say. For example, I believe the horrendous Kelo v. New London decision, which said local governments can seize private homes and turn them over to private developers for the purpose of raising the tax base, may have garnered the bicameral two-thirds needed for a veto. Were the court to misuse the 14th Amendment to create a right to same-sex marriage, as I suspect it might, that, too, might secure the two-thirds votes necessary for a congressional veto.

There was no greater advocate of representative, constitutional government than Ronald Reagan, and no more outspoken opponent of unbridled judicial activism. If we are to preserve the Constitution as he and the framers understood it, then the Supreme Court must be reigned in through these modest reforms that also respect the independence of the court.

US HR 739 SAFE DV Industry Act

2009-10-03T11:09:34-04:00

H.R. 739 ‘SAFE’ Act – Ignoring…

An Industry

Battered by Reality

H.R. 739, the SAFE (Security and Financial Empowerment) Act has been introduced in the House to address alleged discrimination against victims of abuse.

But if we want to curb domestic violence, we first need to ask why existing domestic violence policies and programs have done such a poor job in helping victims and stopping abuse.

Evidence of the pervasive problems began to mount six years ago:

1. Ms. Foundation for Women: Minorities Harmed by Arrests

The original VAWA law provided millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest laws. But such policies have turned out to be ineffective, and the impact on minority communities has been devastating.

In 2003, the Ms. Foundation for Women concluded: “Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities.”^{^[1]}

2. OMB and DoJ: No Evidence of Effectiveness

In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget rated the effectiveness of abuse shelters supported by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. The OMB rating states flatly, “Not Performing: Results not Demonstrated.”[2]

That same year, Angela Moore Parmley of Department of Justice admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”^{^[3]}

3. National Academy of Sciences: Programs ‘Driven by Ideology’

The following year the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women. The report concludes that many domestic violence programs are “driven by ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause.”^{^[4]}

4. Researcher: ‘Factoids from Nowhere’ are Common

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania researcher Richard Gelles published a report documenting the widespread use of misleading and false claims by representatives of the domestic violence field. Professor Gelles concluded such “factoids from nowhere” could turn out to be “harmful to women, men, children, and the institution of the family.”[5]

5. CDC: Women More Likely to Abuse

Later that same year, the Centers for Disease Control released a national survey on partner aggression. Published in the May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that women were the aggressors in 7 out of 10 cases of one-way partner violence.[6]

This study confirmed over 200 other studies showing women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner violence. And last month, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was murdered in his sleep by his ex-girlfriend.

Despite such compelling evidence, the domestic violence industry consistently refuses to acknowledge that violence-prone women need help.

6. Lawsuits

In recent years, a number of lawsuits have been filed against domestic violence programs.

· In California, a ground-breaking lawsuit resulted in the Third Court of Appeals ruling that domestic violence programs in the state were engaged in illegal sex discrimination.

· In West Virginia, a pending lawsuit alleges discrimination and dissemination of false and misleading information.

7. Florida IG: Cover-Ups

Last month the Florida Inspector General released the results of investigations of two abuse shelters in the state: Another Way and Harbor House.

Both investigations document attempts by top managers to thwart the reporting of child neglect and abuse that had occurred within the shelters. The similarity of the cases raises questions why two abuse shelters were engaged in such cover-ups.

8. California: Draconian Budget Cuts

Facing a $14.5 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently cut the budgets of almost all state departments by 10%. But when it came to abuse shelters, the governor opted to slash all – that’s 100% -- of the state funding.

One wonders if the governor will now demand accountability and proof of effectiveness before restoring funding to these abuse programs.

12-Point Plan to Rescue VAWA

Beset by a myriad of complaints, lawsuits, and budget cuts, the domestic violence industry has fallen into dire straights. But the industry refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists.

The upcoming renewal of the Violence Against Women Act provides a historic opportunity for lawmakers to institute long-overdue reforms. These are the changes that are needed:

Respect the wishes, decisions, and autonomy of victims.
Assure policies and programs are based on sound science, not rigid ideology.
Assure policies and programs are culturally-sensitive to the needs of African-Americans and other minorities.
Assure fairness and equal opportunity in funding for culturally-sensitive domestic violence programs.
Assure that services are made available to all groups. Avoid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Assure programmatic and financial accountability.
Assure the criminal justice system respects due process protections. Phase out mandatory arrest laws that have been proven to be harmful.
Assure training and community education programs provide accurate information, and do not promote harmful gender stereotypes.
Assure that persons who provide services to victims and offenders have the necessary academic credentials and training.
Reform VAWA’s immigration provisions to restore due process and protect the rights of the falsely-accused.
Base services on a careful needs assessment that takes into account the many factors that can cause intimate partner aggression.
Respect the integrity of the family. Encourage counseling over incarceration.

HR 739 shrugs off the pressing need to revitalize the faltering domestic violence industry. We ask you to assure the upcoming Violence Against Women Act addresses the 12-point plan for VAWA revitalization.

Do victims of abuse deserve anything less?

For more information, contact:

African-Americans for

VAWA Reform

P.O. Box

8701

South Charleston, WV

25303

(304) 342-7752

www.aavreform.org

References

[1] Ms. Foundation for Women. Safety and justice for all.

New York

, 2003. http://www.ms.foundation.org/user-assets/PDF/Program/safety_justice.pdf

[2] Program Assessment: Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002150.2004.html

[3] Parmley A. Violence against women post VAWA. Violence Against Women Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004. p. 1424.

[4] Kruttschnitt C, McLaughlin BL, and Petrie CV (eds). Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women.

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005, p. 6.

[5] Gelles RJ. The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—The cases of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.

[6] Whitaker DJ et al. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.

Puple Heart"s Final Beat

2009-09-23T16:28:47-04:00

Posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com dandiebolt

Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:17 pm (PDT)

This is one of the most disturbing videos I have seen come out of our movement and it should move any legislator and judge to shame for the way soldiers and fathers are treated in our family courts. Additionally, it is very well scripted and produced here in Michigan. In fact, I think the producer should apply for Michigan Film Office for the tax credits so he can fund additional videos.

We need a concerted campaign to drive this video up in the number of views, add supportive comments and video replies. Lets help it go viral.

Purple Heart's Final Beat - A Soldier Suicide Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_StCzStBy0

This is why each state needs to have a US Hero Parent Child Custody Protection Act that does not allow the FOC and Family Court to use any time spent deployed in the service of our country against a parent in a child custody decision.