If you have been a defendant in any of our family courts since the "welfare reform" of the 1990's, you most likely left there with an eerie feeling that the decision was made long before you walked into the courtroom. That should be of no surprise to anyone because the fact is; the decision was made long before your case was even filed.
How and why does this keep happening with such great predictability? That is because our family law operation is that way by design.
Our states' family law statutes are not designed to dispense justice or operate in "the best interest of the child." Nor are they the true governance over the daily operations of our courts. Rather, the states family law statutes are designed to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from a vast array of federal grant sources. Most of the programs providing the grant money to family law were major parts of our failed welfare reform effort of the 1990's.
The legislatures of most of our states have abnegated their authority over the operational guidelines of their courts to committees under their Supreme Courts. These committees produce and manage the states' courts guidelines, rules and procedures that govern the day-to-day operation of the state's family courts and that of the court personnel and, in effect, attorneys practicing within them.
These guidelines, rules, and procedures your own attorney will claim they must work within have nothing to do with actual laws. Remember the separation of powers? That's right. It is against the law for our courts to legislate. So the guidelines, rules and procedures that govern our courts operation aren't laws. But don't fool yourself; they do have the full effect and force of law.
To be certain nothing can stop this feeding frenzy off the federal teat, the states have excluded the operation of the courts from their respective Sunshine laws. So you can't find out in advance what they are planning to do in the next revision. Therefore, you have no say in the matter except after the fact. This for all practical matters is no say at all.
This then raises the question: What was your attorney doing when he or she said you have a "winnable" case and why isn't he or she filing civil rights violations claims when you get slaughtered? Upon interviewing several dozen family law attorneys throughout the country, my group True Equality Network came to the astounding conclusion that they do not actually practice law at all. Family law attorneys are merely "processors" within a system of very constrictive procedural guidelines.
So your defeat will be due to the practice of law without governing laws.
Then what are these elusive guidelines, rules, and procedures constructed to do? That's simple. They are designed to make certain that rulings are made that generate the highest return from an assortment of federal "incentive programs."
It is important to note that the states actually have no legal requirement to do what is required of most, if not all, of the federal incentive programs. Those requirements are only applicable if the state wants to apply for the federal moneys a given program provides.
When the basic concept of "if you violate someone's civil rights so I make money, I'll give you some of the money" is applied in the private sector we call it, payola, bribery, or maybe even racketeering, depending on the specifics of what was done and how it was done of course. However, when government violates your civil rights under the color of law it is called an incentive program.
Once the states get the money they can apply it to a host of state level programs, such as retirement funds for court workers and judges and performance incentives for court workers such as child support case administrators.
This has proven to make seeking a fair ruling or other actions within the family courts, like reasonable child support orders, much like asking the county employees involved to take a voluntary pay cut. This also keeps the attorneys inline, since they too know they would be asking the judges to take a pay cut and that won't help them win their next case.
The failure of "welfare reform" is found in its core principle of basing the federal incentives primarily on the money the state's collect in child support, not primarily on the percentage of cases they collect successfully.
Since the welfare reform laws were enacted we have seen some horrifying results. Not the least of which is how child support arrearages have grown from being less than ten billion dollars nationally when welfare reform was first being debated in the US Congress in the 1990's to approaching one hundred billion dollars today.
Terri Lynn Tersak is a Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of True Equality Network. She is presently on an extended maternity and family leave from her work as a commercial photographer and her positions as President of True Equality Network, and those with the Maryland based think-tank RADAR - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting. She lives at home with her husband Terry, son, and pets.
"How the Failure of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Court
Gee Terri, where have you been for the last decade. You also forgot to mention that passports of obligors are now being seized when they try to flee this tyranny.
Also of interest are the security measures in place at the fleecing centers, doing business behind bullet-proof glass. That should tell Americans something about what is happening here. (I am not and have never been sucked into this Nazi-like system.)
Many CSED "case officers" have criminal backgrounds. Wonder when that story will be printed by the MSM. I am not holding my breath.
One former CSED director that I investigated in Alaska in the 1990's had an arrest record for prostitution in Fairbanks. A sterling example, but indeed reflects on the entire system.
Bottom line: these criminals are in it for the money, and could care less about the welfare of the children.
Try going a little more in-depth next time, if you continue to report on this issue, and if you have the guts.
Robert S. Finnegan
Managing Editor
Southeast Asia News
by
Robert Finnegan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 10:23:15 PM
Yes Robert, that is all true. But those are state actions. I'm start at the top and working my way down, since this is a top-down problem.
Let us also not forget the massive asset tracking system DHHS OCSE had built by Accenture (formerly Author Anderson Consulting) that tracks bank accounts, property (including car and boats) and pretty much anything that has you SS number tied to it somewhere.
List is sickening, but only applies to you if you can afford to pay. If not, they couldn't care less.
This mess was supposed to "reform welfare" by replacing it with child support. Instead they have attacked everyone but the low income earner, whose child support is truly the difference between having food on the children's table or not.
At a certain level it has been a horrid social experiment, designed to see how far they could go abusing the civil rights of men before serious backlash occurred.
by
Terri Lynn Tersak (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 10:47:36 PM
It seems very odd to me that Legislators demand mandatory sentences for crimes.Don’t they trust their judges to do the right thing in sentencing for crimes? Apparently not….. Or laws written requiring mandatory sentences would not have to be on the books. If Legislators don’t trust judges to give a proper sentence for a crime, then why trust these same judges with making very sensitive decisions on family matters such as child custody without any restraints or clear directions? The GA courts when sentencing for crimes are supposed to look out for “the best interests of the public’s safety”. The Legislature has determined the courts and judges cannot be trusted with this type of decision and has ordered mandatory sentencing for crimes. The Legislators don’t trust judges with something as basic as traffic fines or littering. Oddly, the only restraint in family law for custody decisions put on the judges in Georgia is “the best interest of the child”. Just what is “the best interest of the child”? Does anyone really know? And why should the citizens of Georgia trust the courts or judges with this type of decision when these same judges can’t be trusted with handing out traffic fines?
The GA legislature is in the process of passing a law that requires the judges to make custody decisions based on “the best interest of the child”, but cannot and have not defined what is “in the best interest of a child”. The Legislature has decided that the courts shall decide exactly what “in the best interest of the child” means, through costly appeals, so the courts may someday decide what ”in the best interest of a child” means at least in Georgia. This leaves GA judge’s full discretion to make any ruling they want regarding the removal of parental rights because they believe it is “in the best interest of the child”. The GA Legislature has already put into law complete immunity for these same judges. And conduct of these judges during family law decisions is not reviewed by the judicial oversight committee. They are not responsible for their rulings in any way shape or form when it come to messing with the most important GA treasure, our children. Judges have complete discretion over what is “in the best interest of the child” now and have proven they can’t handle it or family law would not be under revision. These same GA judges are presiding over criminal cases that the Legislature has decided the Judges can’t handle without clear instructions on sentencing. This is a completely irresponsible act on the Georgia Legislatures part.
Just what is “in the best interest of a child” in a divorce custody proceeding. I think the “best interest of the child” is best described by studying the very reason marriage has been accepted around the world for millennia before the U.S. governments (federal and state) and virtually every government around the world existed. What is “marriage”? Black’s Law Dictionary defines marriage as, “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. “ A History of Marriage describes the reason for marriage in the beginning was because “most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species (have children), a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines.”
OK, but why does government care or recognize marriage? Marriage is recognized by the majority of the U.S.’s governments and the rest of the world to be between a man and a woman, who contemplate having children (the perpetuation of the species), and that it is in the best interest of children, society, and governments to recognize and insure that the married can take care of their children (insure the protection of the bloodline). This is one of those inalienable life rights granted not by government but by God. Thus, marriage has been recognized and accepted since the beginning of recorded civilization as a legal union between a man and woman in the interest of children, in the interest of society, and in the interests of the governments around the world. People, who are married, are treated differently by governments around the world, because they believe it is so important to the stability of their society and their government. The U.S.’s governments deem the sanctity of marriage so important, that people married are given “special rights” under the law. According to the United StatesGovernment Accountability Office (GAO), there are over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from single people. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to opposite-sex married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) bars same-sex married couples from receiving any federal recognition or benefits. One example is to allow one spouse not to be required to testify against the other spouse in a criminal trial. In other words, the U.S. governments have decided that even prosecution for criminal offenses even takes a back seat to marriage, which is for and in “the best interest of children”.
It is also well accepted around the world by all member governments of the U.N., that even during international disputes between two countries that are not on very friendly terms, that both parents have inalienable custodial rightsto their children that do not end even in divorce, change of residence, or citizenship regardless of any perceived best interest of the child to live a certain life style even if it might be better. (See Elion Gonzalez case)
In the U.S., the capitalist way to care for a child is through money. Thus the courts order “child support” now a widely accepted form of involuntary servitude around the world under pressure from the U.S. Allegedly the U.S.’s governments believe; the money cares for the children by providing a perceived life style the children had with both parents together. Essentially, the U.S.’s governments believe one parent should just throw money at the child’s care taker parent and set the child in the corner to watch T.V. while they go to work. This sad idea of the best interest of a child by the U.S.’s governments and their courts has destroyed so many children’s lives they cannot be counted. It is a wander how many criminals and killers have been generated by the U.S.’s governments through this type of court ordered child neglect. If mere monetary support by either parent was “in the best interest of a child”, many thousands of years ago, marriage would have never came to into existence. There could have been a dowry paid for each child. In a sense, that is exactly what the U.S.’s governments have set up, a dowry system, and a market for court ordered child neglect with demands of involuntary servitude. The U.S. governments demand this through child support laws which specify a certain dollar amount each month verse percent of income, even if the ordered child support puts a person in a condition of involuntary servitude (peonage) to another which is clearly contrary to the prohibitions against involuntary servitude listed in the Thirteenth Amendment U.S. Constitution. When it comes to money , not “the best interest of the children” or even the U.S. Constitution matters to governments and their perspective courts. Elected government officials and judges will even commit treason against the U.S. Constitution by openly not supporting and openly ignoring it, in direct violation of their very oath of office under Article Six as long as they get their piece of the pie or can control who gets pie.
Just like alcohol during prohibition, this support collection is no small market. When this much money is involved, government officials at all levels turn their heads away from the real best interest of a child and think of their best interest, money. During the interview of a federal child support collections enforcement (CSCE) official, she told of her encounters describing her CSCE job to other government officials she met in Washington. They would not pay attention to her until she boasted that she was responsible for $1.5 billion of support collected by her office. She said that’s when people would stop and listen to her. This $1.5 billion does not include the support that does not flow through their office. It is estimated to be 4.5 Billion dollars. Georgia and other states are now going to charge a fee of $25 on support transfers of $500. That is 5% of 4.5 Billion dollars or $225 million dollars going to the various governments. That is a lot of money up for grabs. If joint custody was required, the U.S. governments will lose hundreds of millions of dollars. The “best interest of a child” having two parents cannot compete with the almighty dollar here in the U.S. and its destruction of children is spreading around the world like a plague under the gun of the U.S.’s governments.
It is well recognized worldwide that having two parents is “in the best interest of a child” and that is why governments worldwide recognize marriage.
In GA, the Legislature refuses to accept and designate by law that; when two parents enter a court room, each parent has entered with equal rights to the care and custody of a child, and thus, “joint custody” of the child. And that before a parent’s custodial rights can be removed that a clear findings of fact based on the weight of clear evidence as to why someone’s rights have been removed or altered must be clearly presented in the judge’s order declaring that a single custodial parent is better than two.
They further refuse to put into law that the courts must further demonstrate through a finding of facts that either parent is or is not capable of continuing the parental responsibilities they had walking into the court. Oddly the “best interest of the child” has been declared as the deciding factors in deciding child custody by every judge that testified before the Legislative committees on family law reform. If this were true there would be very few single mothers declaring as a badge of honor they alone raised a child. If the other parent is not dead or in jail that person is a child abuser. The child should have two custodial parents which have been recognized for millennia as in “the best interest of a child” regardless of any perceived “life style” or burden by either parent.
Governments have bent the rules giving these married people discriminating rights. It is high time they take responsibility by law and under order for the joint custody and care of the children bore from marriage or outside marriage. The law in every U.S. State should specify that joint custody is mandatory unless clear and convincing proven facts outweigh “the best interest of a child” to have two custodial parents. The only facts that should be considered would be the same facts and procedures as if the state was removing custody from both parents. I.E. Is the child safe and free from neglect or abuse with either parent? This leaves little wiggle room when it come to a judge wrecking a child’s life. And all allegations of crimes must be ignored in the proceedings, unless the person has been proven guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his piers that directly relates to the direct care and welfare of the child.
Does this mean the child has to move from one home to another? Yes, the child has two parents not one as the GA government believes. Do they have to move every day? NO. They can move annually if that is decided as best under the circumstances. Each parent has an inalienable right to the child that goes beyond judgment of this government or any other government. This is a God given right not government given right.
Some say the children will not have a stable home if they have to move all the time. That is a load of bull perpetrated by money hungry child abusers seeking to keep one parent out of the life of what they have decided was “their child”. Military kids move all the time and are found to be better socially because they are used to making new friends.
The truth is the GA Legislature does not believe bad judgments dealing with family law will affect them. After all, they don’t plan on getting divorced and letting a judge make life decisions involving their children, but they get scared if someone commits a crime. They believe somehow, the crime might happen to them, Yikes! Or worse they want to do it for show. Hey, look at me, I’m tough on crime, but in truth what they permit judges to do to families is just criminal. The GA Legislators truly don’t trust the judges to make decisions that involve them or their lives, which is why they write laws for mandatory sentences for crimes. But, when it comes to someone else’s life, a bad judgment is just fine with them. It is clear that the GA legislatures only care about themselves. The citizens of are by far secondary on their list.
Accordingly: With Criminal Law, Judges can’t be trusted to decide how to keep the public safe and even with traffic laws they require Mandatory Sentencing,
v.
With Family Law, the same Judges are trusted to decide how to screw up the life of Georgia citizens and the lives of Georgia children’s without restraint and with complete immunity.
Richard Gallaher,
Just another victim of the U.S. government.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 529 comments)
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 4:24:51 AM
