Search This Blog

Friday, December 24, 2010

Changing Child Support in 2011

Now that Michigan and the US Supreme Courts are looking at the issue of felony child support laws I think that it may be time to push for real change in the system. Most of us believe that income based child support formulas, interests, fees and adjustments are all a big problem in the system. We also believe that jailing parents for not being able to pay the bloated support is stupid and unconstitutional and needs to be eliminated. So, going forward, we need to look at proving to our elected officials and the public that changing the system towards an actual child rearing cost formula with there being an emphasis on equal custody rights is the right thing to do. Also we should also look at agreeing that those parents who do not support their children in any way should be considered negligent and possibly face punishment under those grounds but not contempt of court.

 

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

 

Friday, December 17, 2010

The Child-Documentary film on Michigan for Parental Rights

Protecting from abuse of the child welfare system

 

Dennis Lawren…

Dennis Lawrence

Dennis Lawrence has invited you to the event 'The Child-Documentary film' on Michigan for Parental Rights!

 

Citizens for Parental Rights will be showing this film. It would be a good idea for all of us to preview it and get this film showed elsewhere. Please RSVP

The Child-Documentary film

Time: December 20, 2010 from 7pm to 9pm
Location: WKTV Studios
Organized By: Citizens for Parental Rights

Event Description:
We are convinced that those who see this film will be compelled to respond to the desperate need to protect children by preserving parental rights through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

RSVP by email to
falseallegations@mail.com

Video Trailer

 

See more details and RSVP on Michigan for Parental Rights:

http://miparentalrights.ning.com/events/event/show?id=4534672%3AEvent%3A2360&xgi=2jQqKNQ1SHjxFT&xg_source=msg_invite_event

About Michigan for Parental Rights

Meet-up location for those in Michigan to bond togather on child welfare issues

Michigan for Parental Rights

70 members
144 photos
29 videos

14 discussions
34 Events
25 blog posts

 

To control which emails you receive on Michigan for Parental Rights, click here

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

MI: Action on Constitutionality of Felony Non-Payment of Child Support


   The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.  Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense. 
   Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone dissenting opinion.
   Here is the Court's order:

Order
November 30, 2010
141513
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 141513
COA: 297182
Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
June 4, 2010 order of
the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties
shall address:
(1) whether the rule of People v
Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that
inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony
non-support under MCL 750.165
— is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see
Port Huron v Jenkinson,
77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied the
defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3)
whether the trial court
erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had
been determined by
family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal
case, or whether the
defendant waived that issue.
We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the
Court together
with the cases of People v Likine
(Docket No. 141154) and People v Parks
(Docket No.
141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready
for submission. Each
side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting
Attorneys
Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.
Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this
case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
YOUNG, J.
(dissenting).

Brian Downs 616.874.8662

Cases heard before the MSC court proceed in a very orderly manner. The
briefs will be available online and oral argument will be scheduled
perhaps a month in advance through this web page:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/msc_orals.htm

Posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com   dandiebolt  Wed Dec 1, 2010 12:30 pm (PST)



I would be interested in working on an amicus brief project for this case either in terms or shopping around for lead attorney, legal research, writing the brief, aggregating or  submitting the brief etc.

Here is the case history:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=141513&inqtype=sdoc&yr=0&yr=0&SubmitBtn=Search

We would need someone to gather up copies of the trial and appellate court documents for background. The trial court is in Muskegon and the record has probably been sent to Lansing already.

I think the MSC is looking in part at Port Huron v Jenkinson case which their order references which was recently raised in an amicus brief before the same court in this case:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/11-10/140603/140603-Amicus-Doe.pdf

It is well-established that "[n]o legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing an act upon any person which it is impossible for him to perform, and then make his non-performance of such duty a crime." Port Huron v Jenkinson, 77 Mich 414 (1889)

So if the trial court disallowed the defense of inability to pay and the MSC agreed Jenkinson applied that there might be a remand to allow the defense of inability to pay to be heard. The error below would have been that the court refused to allow a defense but since there is probably nothing in the record supporting the defense this remand would be with out any consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the inability to pay defense.

 

 

Action on MI Constitutionality of Child Support


   The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.  Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense. 
   Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone dissenting opinion.
   Here is the Court's order:

Order
November 30, 2010
141513
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 141513
COA: 297182
Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
June 4, 2010 order of
the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties
shall address:
(1) whether the rule of People v
Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that
inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony
non-support under MCL 750.165
— is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see
Port Huron v Jenkinson,
77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied the
defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3)
whether the trial court
erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had
been determined by
family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal
case, or whether the
defendant waived that issue.
We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the
Court together
with the cases of People v Likine
(Docket No. 141154) and People v Parks
(Docket No.
141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready
for submission. Each
side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting
Attorneys
Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.
Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this
case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
YOUNG, J.
(dissenting).

Brian Downs 616.874.8662

Cases heard before the MSC court proceed in a very orderly manner. The
briefs will be available online and oral argument will be scheduled
perhaps a month in advance through this web page:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/msc_orals.htm

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

Wed Dec 1, 2010 12:30 pm (PST)

I would be interested in working on an amicus brief project for this case either in terms or shopping around for lead attorney, legal research, writing the brief, aggregating or  submitting the brief etc.

Here is the case history:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=141513&inqtype=sdoc&yr=0&yr=0&SubmitBtn=Search

We would need someone to gather up copies of the trial and appellate court documents for background. The trial court is in Muskegon and the record has probably been sent to Lansing already.

I think the MSC is looking in part at Port Huron v Jenkinson case which their order references which was recently raised in an amicus brief before the same court in this case:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/11-10/140603/140603-Amicus-Doe.pdf

It is well-established that "[n]o legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing an act upon any person which it is impossible for him to perform, and then make his non-performance of such duty a crime." Port Huron v Jenkinson, 77 Mich 414 (1889)

So if the trial court disallowed the defense of inability to pay and the MSC agreed Jenkinson applied that there might be a remand to allow the defense of inability to pay to be heard. The error below would have been that the court refused to allow a defense but since there is probably nothing in the record supporting the defense this remand would be with out any consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the inability to pay defense.

 

 

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

 

Friday, December 10, 2010

Federal Lawsuit filed/ Rally reports & protest for Nov 24/ Your FEEDBACK

=========================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
---
Newsletter@kids-right.org
To REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE LIST go to:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter

Good People & People of Faith,

This message has info on:

1. Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit -  filed by attorney Leon Koziol
2. Chicago Rally -- what happened on Oct 23rd.
3. F4J Protest in Ballston Spa, NY - Wednesday, Nov 24, 1100-1300
4. F4J Protest and video - what happened in Ballston Spa, Oct 2nd.
5. Idea of equal parenting going out of style? - William L Spence
6. Your FEEDBACK - always welcome!



1. Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit -  filed by attorney Leon Koziol
----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

This press release went out a few days ago.  Attorney Leon Koziol
(http://www.LeonKoziol.com/) has been fighting for Fathers Rights for
quite some time. He is a civil Rights attorney that became involved in
his own custody battle and saw first hand what family court and nys
law does to families.


   "In what may be described as the most sweeping challenge to date
   upon our nation's draconian child control laws surrounding Title
   IV-D of the Social Security Act, New York Civil Rights Advocate
   Leon R. Koziol, J.D. has filed a comprehensive test case in United
   States District Court in Albany, New York. Named in the action are
   judicial and law enforcement officials, including New York's Chief
   Justice and Unified Court System. The lawsuit, served upon select
   parties this week, takes aim at “custody” and “child support” laws
   which alienate children from their parents as part of a government
   money generating scheme. A 39 page, 24 count civil complaint sets
   forth the manner in which lawyers and forensic agents feed off of
   manufactured controversies in domestic relations courts to harm
   parent-child relations and the financial stability of mainstream
   households. According to Koziol, it is a process which is harming
   the productivity of an entire nation."


See the link for the entire complaint.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42942978/Koziol-Files-Federal-Court-Civil-Rights-Lawsuit-NYS-Chief-Justice-Others-Named


2. Chicago Rally -- what happened on Oct 23rd.
---------------------------------------------
Submitted by: John F <f4j.john@yahoo.com>

It rained all morning, we had about 12 - 13 people. 4 groups
together. The rain cleared up around noon. I spent alot of time
contacting the media, to have no one show up. So I will be making a
youtube video I am sure. I would like to send in a story to the media
as well, I just do not have that much time right now.

I have a court case to get ready for which takes away my time right
now. I have some pictures on my facebook page.  It was a great spot
for a rally though. A lot of horns honking!


3. F4J Protest in Ballston Spa, NY - Wednesday, Nov 24, 1100-1300
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

Not to be deterred by the heavy handed response [from a prior protest
detailed below] we have a protest scheduled for this Wednesday at
11:00AM-1:00PM.  This is the first midweek protest we are doing in
Ballston Spa, NY, usually I do them on the weekend because I'm
working.

It will be at the corner of route 50 and West High street. Anyone
interested in participating please contact me. cell: 518-321-9928,
home: 518-693-6315, email: fr33j6ck@yahoo.com.

I am also quite active on facebook. Feel free to do a friend request.
http://www.facebook.com/j6ckfr0st

In Solidarity,
John (Jack) Frost

Fathers 4 Justice - Leadership Council New York Chapter.

861 North Hudson Ave.
PO BOX 801
Stillwater, NY 12170


4. F4J Protest and video - what happened in Ballston Spa, Oct 2nd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

Here is a video I put together of the last protest Oct. 2nd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXMt9MxTYeE

This was the first protest where I had a police presence. I was in the
street handing out Fathers4Justice business cards. I was not
interrupting traffic and the public was very supportive. I even
received 17 dollars in donations although that was not my purpose. My
purpose was to bring awareness to the injustice that happens in Family
Court especially to Fathers and the relationship with their children.

A eventually got out of the road as was requested by the Ballston Spa
policeman. I moved to the other side of the street to continue my
protest on the sidewalk.  I saw the Ballston Spa policeman pull up
very fast and he was shouting into the mike of his radio. I thought
this was a little over the top for a one man, one grandmother
protest(she was the one taking the pictures, she is in her 60's).  I
got some pics of me protesting right next to his vehicle. After a
short time a trooper driving very fast pulled up on the other side of
the parking lot and then yet another trooper showed up.

The accompanying video is a little tongue-n-check at the heavy handed
response from the local Ballston Spa policeman and the troopers who
were called for backup. Kind of reminds me of how fathers are treated
like criminals in family court. Loving fathers are not criminals.

All the police stayed until the protest was over. You can see the
Ballston Spa policemen taking down my license plate. I later learned
he was after my name and address as I got the 911 recordings. The
troopers never asked me for identification and I certainly wasn't
hiding it. More unnecessary heavy handedness - the war against loving
fathers continues beyond the court room as we all know.


5. Idea of equal parenting going out of style? - William L Spence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: William L Spence <wls@redshift.com>

Is the idea of equal parenting going out of style?

There have always been some fathers who hold that patriarchy is the
natural condition of the family and father sole custody when the
parents break up is always the the best arrangement for children, but
I think I've been seeing a new trend among fathers in which equal
joint custody is ridiculed and fighting hard in court to win full
custody is urged.

The claim that's being made is that there's no family court gender
bias and that by bringing forth quantities of `evidence' embarrassing
to the mother, and tampering with court appointed evaluators, a father
can reliably win in court.  Other than instruction to give it
lip-service, little is said about what's good for the child: defeating
the ex' gets the entire emphasis.

The cases that are exhibited as successes supporting this point of
view all involve mothers who were clearly unfit to parent, and in
which it appears the child protective agency going against the mother
had much more to do with the result in court than the father's
cleverness or aggressiveness.  Nevertheless the approach and
`understanding' of how family court operates offered, is appealing to
many fathers with a much broader variety of types of cases, and
despite the fact that most are in fact not readily receiving sole
custody or even orders giving them anything approaching equal amounts
of parenting time or decision making power.

A notable segment among them are fathers who's child was conceived in
a very casual relationship or one-night stand with the mother, who
then complain that the mother's pattern of frequent changes of
romantic partner should disqualify them as parents, and who expect to
receive sole custody immediately upon establishing a steady
relationship with or marrying another woman, even with a desultory
record of contact with the child.


6. Your FEEDBACK - always welcome!
----------------------------------


--- Thea Artis <f4vahr@yahoo.com>

> Thirty years ago--when the laws we hate were proposed, men like us
> sat around and said “that doesn't affect me”, and “I've got time
> constraints” and “I don't want to get involved.” Look at where we
> are now.

> What will our grandsons say about us thirty years from now?


--- George Piskor <gwpiskor@sympatico.ca>

> You have nothing to apologize for in terms of being quiet for a
> while.

> Count your blessings that you had your son for six weeks, and that
> there is light for you at the end of the tunnel in terms of expiring
> “court-managed” time.

> I suspect your new understanding of the realities of risk will also
> serve to decrease some of your frustration with the pace of the
> movement, as well as perhaps providing you with an appreciation that
> risk comes in many flavors of action , not all of which are
> immediately apparent. Additionally, risk exposure is not the only
> yardstick by which to measure progress.



--- Lorie NABA <lorie-morphis@clearwire.net>

> The easy and safe path" for judges, lawyers, child welfare workers
> kidnapping, enslavement of "cute and adoptable" innocent children.
> The destruction of good capable parents, siblings, and families.
     
> Your lack of action pales compared to their acts of aggression,
> John.  Sometimes endurance is all that is required.  God hates a
> divorce.  He sees how people are exploited in connection with it.
     
> Yours truly, Lorie Morphis (Naba) -- mother to Hayley Rose Morphis
> and Kelsey Serene Morphis, children abducted by Oregon DHS 2001.
> aka adopted names Hayley Lynn Sands, age 12, and Kelsey Marie Sands,
> age 11.  Last known whereabouts Cottage Grove, Oregon Last contact
> 2005.


--- Brian Kelley <kelley01@visi.com>   http://www.allaboutfam.org/

> I believe we have spoken on the phone once. I too am humbled by my
> failings and realize now how much more GOD wanted out of my marriage
> and relationships and that because I didn't follow his word, that my
> life took turns including pain and anguish that I could have saved
> myself if I would have listened and not done my own thing. If I
> would have honored Christ, I would not be in a situation to where my
> children are born from two different women and now I am in agonizing
> pain over this divorce which I have also caused. I believe if I
> would have stewarded my marriage better I wouldn't be here. However I
> cant do anything about the past, only focus on the future.


--- mtcicero0@yahoo.com

> Family codes should be revamped to provide parents recourse and
> substantially diminish judicial discretion.  Judges should
> adjudicate parenting plans submitted by parents and order the one
> providing for the more equitable allocation of parenting time,
> unless the other parent can show the parent cannot carry out the
> duties the plan would assign them, or that the plan lacks
> comprehensiveness.

> Meaningful appeals of the core aspects of custody orders---based on
> arguable points of law and standards whose meeting or failure to be
> met can be decided by the application of concrete tests---would be
> enabled.

> There would be no court ordered custody evaluations or guardian ad
> litem or special master appointments unless parental incompetence is
> shown, in which case they would be by motion of a representative of
> the state other than the judge, as in dependency court.  Parents,
> however, certainly could consult expert therapists in devising and
> defending their parenting plans.


--- Dillon


> the Lake County CPS revoked my parental rights and adopted my son.
> i thought i was going to be able to fight them but no use.  can you
> take me off you mailing list.  no one has any rights in this
> adoption scheme.

I got your message and VERY sorry to hear what happened to you and
your child.  I can't imagine anything worse for you or him, and I hope
you will not just walk away and affirm the great indignity by which
you have both been treated.

What happened to you is any parent's worst nightmare.  I don't know
how anyone deals with it.  Pardon me if I challenge you to try a
little more.  You are welcome to post your story to our Hall of Shame,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/shame.htm

As long as our goal is "beating" them -- well, you are never sure if
you will succeed or if it is worth the effort and sacrifice.

But it is fully in your power to demonstrate to yourself, to your son,
and to others how much you love your son and what a great injustice
was done.  I guess you have been on the list for a while, I encourage
you to take a look at NonViolent Action again.

Regarding "they terminated your rights?"  Is that an oxymoron?  How
can they terminate something they never had control over?  Was the
black's right to freedom "terminated" because they were kept as
slaves?

I know taking action can be difficult, especially the sacrifice
required.  But as far as the present system goes, we are victims of
our own timidity -- this guy says it well.

Submitted by: Eric Tarkington <etarking@ooadvocate.com>

    It is amazing how docile people are! They will actually allow the
    government to take their children and/or decide which parental
    rights they keep. It is rare that the government has to use even
    the threat of force - people comply with having their hearts
    ripped out, just because they think they should. It's the 21st
    century, people! Join an equal parenting group! You are not the
    government's little dog, and they have no right to snatch your
    "puppies" when they feel like it.

    They are violating you and your children through you, and if you
    are not a criminal you are much better for your children than any
    government. Your natural commitment to your children is the
    awesome power that keeps the human race going. Respect yourself!
    Stand up and fight for your parental rights, which are the best
    protection of your children's best interests.  There is only one
    other person who has an equal right to parent your children. Work
    things out with him or her, and keep the government out of it.

Even if you think it is too late for yourself.  If you would like to help
others, let me know.

<<no response>>

-- 
                                                            John Murtari
____________________________________________________________________
Coordinator                                        AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org         A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
(315) 944-0999(x-211)             http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Federal Takeover of Michigan DHS Averted By Deal With Gov.-Elect Synder

detnews.com 


 

December 7, 2010

http://detnews.com/article/20101207/METRO/12070385

Deal averts request for fed control of Mich. child welfare system

CATHERINE JUN
The Detroit News

Detroit — A child advocacy group backed away from plans to seek a federal takeover of Michigan's child welfare system after a federal judge said she received assurances from Gov.-elect Rick Snyder that his incoming administration will make fixing the Department of Human Services a top priority.

Children's Rights, a New York-based agency, had announced earlier today that it planned to file a motion of contempt Wednesday in federal court in Detroit and ask the judge to appoint a receiver for Human Services, the agency that oversees foster care and adoption. The agency cited a progress report publicized today that showed the state was failing to comply with court-mandated reforms.

Instead, after a meeting in chambers this afternoon with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds, attorneys for Children's Rights agreed to meet again with DHS officials in late January — after Snyder takes office — to devise a plan to get reforms on track.

"We have every confidence that they see how urgent this is," said Sara Bartosz, senior staff attorney for Children's Rights. She added, though, that she has not ruled out seeking federal intervention in the future, if necessary. "That option is out there if the system doesn't improve."

This is the latest development in the department's court-ordered overhaul of its foster care system. The department has been under court watch since the settlement of a lawsuit in July 2008 filed by the New York group, which alleged the state's system was endangering the lives of children.

Before the scheduled 2 p.m. court hearing, the New York agency had issued a statement saying it planned to seek receivership for the department, citing a court-appointed monitor's report that showed the department failed to adequately reduce high caseloads for caseworkers as well as recruit and retain enough foster homes.

The 200-page report, covering Oct. 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, charges that DHS failed to: Ensure that new caseworkers were adequately trained before they became responsible for children and families.

Ensure that adequate staff was assigned to conduct timely and thorough child abuse and neglect investigations.

Recruit, retain and license enough foster homes and those of relative care providers.

Court-appointed monitor Kevin Ryan, of the New Jersey-based Public Catalyst Group, submitted the report to Judge Edmunds at the hearing.

According to the report, Ryan also found data-keeping and mathematical errors in state records, including how the state counts the number of children in its care. The state delayed the recording of adoption finalizations in some cases by as much as 225 days.

"Child welfare managers and staff across Michigan, in both the private and public sector, are working very hard, but their best efforts are often undone by poor planning and a lack of adequate coordination," the report stated.

This is the third update since the settlement, and comes 1½ years after reforms began. The settlement contained a five-year plan the state agreed to enact.

This is the final report before Rick Snyder takes over as governor next month. It's possible that new management will be tapped at DHS.

Anticipating the court hearing, the Michigan Department of Human Services issued a news release this morning highlighting what it says are improvements within the department.

More children have been adopted from foster care, are receiving better mental health services and have better outcomes overall, DHS Director Ismael Ahmed said in a written statement.

"DHS, in partnership with private agencies and the courts, have made significant strides in the past two years to ensure we're doing our part to help children find safe, loving and stable homes," Ahmed said.

In fact, 3,030 children were adopted from foster care in 2009, more than in any other year, he said.

Other accomplishments include reducing the number of children in foster care and expanding a program that provides in-home services and support to families with children who have serious emotional problems.

The previous report issued in March showed the state was missing significant targets, like sufficiently reducing the number of children aging out of foster care and documenting adequate responses to allegations of abuse or neglect of foster children.

At the time, the human services department was placed on a 30-day watch to get reforms on track.


© Copyright 2010 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.

Error! Filename not specified.  

KFXA FOX 28 :: Top Stories - Double Standard for Dads in Custody Battles?

KFXA FOX 28 :: Top Stories - Double Standard for Dads in Custody Battles?

Monday, December 6, 2010

DMM: Family and Parenting Program

Posted by: "Anthony Rigato" anthonyrigato@yahoo.com   anthonyrigato

Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:54 am (PST)



http://www.dadsandmomsofmichigan.org
 

Family & Parenting
Program One

Beginning

Hello to everyone! I would like to invite you all to attend a new program created by me at the request of Dads
and Moms. I have been elected as the new President of this organization
and will be the facilitator of this program. Please come and join us I
give you a small but significant promise "You will leave with more then you came with "God Bless you  and your family! Tony 248-303-2600
The Scope: A Two Hour program

In this
first of three series, you will be more informed and educated on the values and
challenges of parenting and the relationships between each other and the
children as well other family members. We will help create an awareness of,
rewards and consequences of the potential successes and failures within a
Family. Our program in simple terms is based on: Kids need both Parents

Ø    
The Family Foundation

o       Remembering the Family

o       Parenting vs. Friendship with the Children and the other parent

o       Both Parents commitment to the Children / Family

Ø    
Simple but not always easy, Tools that work

o       How to manage Change

o       How to Identify, Accept and Manage Fear

o       Expectations vs. Reality

This Interactive program includes open discussion and real life
experiences.

$15.00 donation required, all participants leave with their
own workbook and more.

Contact
Dads and Moms for Times & Dates

Location: WATERFORD EAGLES

4761 Highland Rd.

Waterford, Mi. 48328

 

A Problem without a Pro-Active Solution is just a PROBLEM!

 

MSC: Child Support on Trail

> The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the
> conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.
> Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense.
> Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone
> dissenting opinion.
> Here is the Court's order:
>
> *Order*
>
> November 30, 2010
>
> 141513
>
> PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
>
> Plaintiff-Appellee,
>
> v SC: 141513
>
> COA: 297182
>
> Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
>
> SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
>
> Defendant-Appellant.
>
> _________________________________________/
>
> On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2010
> order of
>
> the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
> address:
>
> (1) whether the rule of *People v Adams*, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding
> that
>
> inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony non-support under
> MCL 750.165
>
> — is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see *Port
> Huron v Jenkinson*,
>
> 77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when
> it denied the
>
> defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3) whether
> the trial court
>
> erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had been
> determined by
>
> family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal case, or
> whether the
>
> defendant waived that issue.
>
> We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court
> together
>
> with the cases of *People v Likine *(Docket No. 141154) and *People v
> Parks *(Docket No.
>
> 141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready for
> submission. Each
>
> side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
>
> The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys
>
> Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other
> persons or groups
>
> interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may
> move the Court
>
> for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
>
> YOUNG, J. (*dissenting*).
>
>
>> Brian Downs
> 616.874.8662
--
"If it's Peace that you want, you're gonna find it on a hill, but the
silence you keep is the silence that kills"

 

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Baskerville: American Conservative Article on Marriage (free access)

My article, "Divorced from Reality," in the December 1, 2010 issue of The American Conservative is now online for free:  http://www.amconmag.com/blog/divorced_from_reality/.  The article argues that marriage advocates are losing the battle for marriage because they refuse to confront the larger issues of divorce and father removal.  The article lists 5 truths that conservative marriage promoters must face.  

 

To write to the editors: letters@amconmag.com.

 

Stephen

************************************************

 

Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
10 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia  20132

 


From Turner Publishing:

 

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family

 

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

STEPHEN BASKERVILLE, PhD

 

“This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children."     -- Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

 

 

For more than 80 articles and studies in mainstream publications on the abuses of the divorce industry, see www.stephenbaskerville.net.

 

 

 

 

Indiana couple still caught in adoption battle - FOX41.com Louisville News Kentucky Indiana News Weather Sports

Indiana couple still caught in adoption battle - FOX41.com Louisville News Kentucky Indiana News Weather Sports Live birth mandated DNA tests with Bio-Parents having presumed equal parenting rights is needed NOW!

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Michigan Re-Start - Join us on December 13

The Michigan Re-Start – Join us on December 13

By John Bebow | Published: November 4, 2010

The election is over and now the hard work of governing begins.

The Center for Michigan and Business Leaders for Michigan invite you to join a statewide agenda-setting conference on Monday, December 13 at the Raddison Hotel in downtown Lansing.

This “Common Sense Reforms for a New Michigan” event will feature panels on public sector efficiency, making Michigan more competitive, and investing in the state’s future. We’re reaching out to all legislators, legislative leaders, and Gov.-elect Rick Snyder to encourage them to attend.

HERE’S THE FULL AGENDA.

Come to this free event to help set the tone as Gov.-Elect Rick Snyder and dozens of new legislators take office and begin to address major challenges in nearly every aspect of state policy, from budget negotiations to education to how to provide basic public services in an era of deep downsizing.

SPACE IS VERY LIMITED! REGISTER TODAY!

THE PROMISE OF JANUARY

Politicians far and wide proclaimed Pure Michigan essential when they were on the campaign trail. It's time to pay up as soon as they take office in January. You can help deliver the prod - via email - to assure that this public investment with eye-popping financial returns isn't dark in 2011.

 

LESSONS FROM PITTSBURGH

A fascinating public radio series this week explores how the Steel City is shaking the rust belt that still holds down Detroit. To accompany that radio series, the Center for Michigan dives deep on the economic data to help illustrate how, and how much, Pittsburgh is making the economic transformation.

 

GARDENING FOR FUTURE HARVESTS

A new report from the Small Business Association of Michigan advocates big changes in state economic development policy - 'gardening,' including market research and other tools to help small business thrive rather than 'hunting' for huge new factories.

 

PENSION FOLLOW UPS

Our report last week on the financial and tax implications of pensions in Grand Rapids drew an I-told-you-so from the city's fiscal director and cries of "us too" from a Traverse City commissioner, among others.

 

OPEN UP THE PRIMARIES

If we hope to move from the political extremes in Michigan and across the U.S., open primaries may be the bridge to better bipartisanship, Phil Power writes this week.

 

LAST CHANCE FOR SEATS

 

More than 400 people have registered so far for the December 13 "Common Sense Reforms for a New Michigan" summit hosted by the Center for Michigan and Business Leaders for Michigan. Register today to grab one of the last remaining seats.

 

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

 

 

The Center for Michigan wishes to thank the many thousands of citizens who participated in our public engagement and public information programs in this election year. This newsletter will return after the Thanksgiving holiday.

 

               

Forward email

This email was sent to mtross152@comcast.net by info@thecenterformichigan.net.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

The Center for Michigan | 4100 N Dixboro Rd | Ann Arbor | MI | 48105

 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Finley: Father's Presence can Fight Poverty

Fathers' presence can fight poverty
The letter below appeared in The Washington Times on Tuesday November 16, 2010.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Fathers' presence can fight poverty
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/15/fathers-presence-can-fight-poverty/
Your Wednesday Web article "Census: Solo households continue to expand" reports that there are "fewer households made of a married couple with minor children (21 percent, down from 24 percent in 2000)." What makes this statistic particularly important are the companion statistics released recently showing that the overall U.S. nonmarital birth rate is around 41 percent while most strikingly, it is 72 percent among blacks. Given the worldwide trends to cut public expenditures (including health, education and welfare) and also the recently released preliminary report by President Obama's deficit-reduction commission, it is undeniably clear that these demographic trends are inherently nonsustainable.

The most commonly offered solution for these nonsustainable demographics is reducing poverty. To the contrary, a stronger case could be made that the optimal solution would be to increase the presence of fathers in families. From the perspective of sound social policy, it is clear that father-headed households are better off economically and the children of these families do better on virtually all indices of social and economic outcomes.

"Progressive" ideology notwithstanding, the empirical data suggest that a national family policy centered on bringing fathers back "in from the cold" and into the warmth of an intact family unit would benefit children not only in terms of positive psychosocial outcomes but also in terms of economic outcomes. The better economic outcomes would, at a minimum, be generated by the economies of scale created by family units rather than solo households. Hard economic times (which appear to be continuing) demand a hard look at failed family policies.

GORDON E. FINLEY
Professor of psychology
Florida International University
Miami, Fla.

 

Monday, November 15, 2010

2 New F & F Newspaper Columns: Child Support, Parental Abductions

Be sure to add glenn@glennsacks.com to your address book or safe sender list so our emails get to your inbox.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20101116.html

 

November 16, 2010

Top Stories

New F & F Column: ‘Child-support bill would end up hurting the kids’

 

In Child-support bill would end up hurting the kids (Columbus Dispatch, 11/13/10), Fathers & Families of Ohio Governing Council Member Terry Kee criticizes SB 292, a current Ohio bill which would raise child support levels during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

 

We suggest you write a Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital, by writing to letters@dispatch.com.

 

Kee writes:

Senate Bill 292, recently introduced by Ohio Senators Shirley A. Smith, D-Cleveland, and Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, would drastically raise Ohio child-support obligations. The average schedule increase for two children would be 27 percent, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

 

In an environment of high unemployment, falling housing prices, rising local taxes and tight credit, this bill could have a devastating effect for many Ohio parents.

 

The bill’s sponsors claim that the increase is intended to adjust for inflation; however, the effects of inflation are ultimately captured in wage increases, and Ohio’s Basic Child Support table is income-based - the more you earn, the more you pay.

 

This bill goes beyond a mere inflation adjustment, however, as it also raises the amount of the obligation relative to income…

 

The overwhelming majority of the individuals listed on the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ “Most Wanted” posters are blue-collar workers of limited means who are unable to meet the often unrealistic demands of the child-support system.

 

Senate Bill 292 exacerbates the already tenuous position held by noncustodial parents and would drive more “dead broke” parents underground, ultimately leading to less support, not more…

 

New F & F Column: ‘Child’s Abduction Shows Need for Japan to Sign Accord’

 

In Child’s abduction shows need for Japan to sign accord (Tacoma News Tribune, 11/12/10), Fathers and Families Board Member Robert Franklin, Esq. discusses the Morehouse child abduction case and Japan’s aiding and abetting of child abductors.

 

We suggest you write a Letter to the Editor of the Tacoma News Tribune, a 150,000 circulation newspaper,

 

Franklin writes:

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires any signatory nation to return a child to the country from which it was taken. But Japan has never signed the convention and so is not bound by it.

 

Furthermore, in Japan fathers rarely get custody of their children after a divorce and even visitation is largely up to the mother. So Japan is a safe haven for mothers who wish to abduct their children. Its family courts condone what courts in this country call a felony.

 

According to the Department of Justice, more than 200,000 children are abducted by a parent in the United States each year. Parental abduction has rightly been called child abuse by psychologists such as Nancy Faulkner, who described the trauma suffered by those children in a paper to the United Nations.

 

Parents who kidnap their children must hide from the authorities, so the child has nowhere to turn for security but to the abducting parent. Forced isolation means that the child loses contact with his or her extended family, as well as with the other parent...

 

It is far past time for Japan to join the family of 84 nations that have bound themselves to the Hague Convention. There should be nowhere in the world that provides a safe haven for child abductors.

Read the full piece here.

 

                Your Participation Needed

 

Fathers and Families invites our members, activists, and supporters to visit our improved Facebook page. We encourage all of you to promote our page among your friends and family members.

 

Volunteers Needed

 

We are looking for volunteer moderators–if you’re interested, please fill out our volunteer form and write “Facebook Moderator” in the “How You Can Help” box.

What's Happening

Aussie AG Recommends Radical Backlash Against Fathers’ Rights

 

Study: Low-Income Parents Bear Brunt of Child Support Punishments

 

F & F Member Eric Reines, M.D. Disagrees with Our Position on Wyrembek Adoption Case

 

Ontario to Begin Impounding Cars of Noncustodial Parents

in Child Support Arrears

Pending Supreme Court Case Weighs Unmarried Fathers’ Rights

 

Father Freed 25 Years After False Allegations

 

Kay Hymowitz: Unmarried Mothers’ Changing Partners Comes Between Fathers and Children

‘Zero Abuse’ Finding in Lesbian Parent Study is Misleading

 

Pressure Builds on Japan to Stop Parental Abduction of Children

Join Fathers and Families

Fathers and Families is a family court reform organization with a comprehensive strategy, an impressive history of legislative and fundraising success, and the largest reach of any advocacy group of its kind:

•             Become an F & F Activist/Supporter by Filling out Our Volunteer Form

•             Contribute to Fathers and Families

This email contains a promotional message from the non-profit organization Fathers and Families.

© 2010. Fathers and Families. All Rights Reserved.

This message was sent from Glenn Sacks to darricksf@achildsright.net. It was sent from: Fathers & Families, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 628, Boston, MA 02116. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.           Email Marketing by

 

 

 

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

 

Government Attacks Relatives Raising Children

Please send this out to all parties:
Washington State, a leader around the country for such programs as concurrent planning, Troxel v. Granville and CASA in child removal and family destruction is now under fire for having too many unlicensed relatives caring for children. Already, children are removed from informal relative care at every opportunity using vague excuses but federal pressure will increase traumatizing families and children all over the U.S.
School systems and welfare offices will most likely be funneling information into the Child Protection Industry with any information that could be helpful in removing the children discussing known family circumstances. Families must be careful to never discuss family issues with any government agent including the school system.
All extended families are advised to exercise extreme caution in utilizing any federal money to include food stamps. For those with clean records, getting formal custody as guardians is now critical. For those without clean records, getting those "deficits" corrected is imperative. Take parenting classes and join groups that can support you in the event of government intervention in your families.
All extended families should have an attorney familiar with your case lined up. Contact an attorney and make small monthly payments for retainers if you must, but know that having a lawyer when there are children involved is not an option in this climate.
All grandparents on social security for whatever reason will be targeted in particular. Have a family meeting to discuss this vulnerability and have a plan in place to address it should the government try and destroy your lineage.
This message is based on the recent CFSR (Federal inspection of CPS page 29 listed concerns) http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/CFSR/about.asp the exit conference link.



--

Dennis Lawrence
http://vimeo.com/channels/112287  MPR Video Channel
www.miparentalrights.ning.com       Social Network

miparentalrights@gmail.com           E-mail Address
616-848-0664

 




--
NOTICE:   Due to its brief and informal nature, e-mail may not accurately
represent the entire or final disposition of a matter; official matters
should be confirmed in signed writings. This message is intended only for
the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this message or any of
its contents, other than by the person(s) to whom it is addressed, is
prohibited and may constitute a BREACH OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW. If this
message has been delivered to you in error, please delete the message from
your system and contact the sender by reply e-mail in the U.S., as soon as
possible. Thank you.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security: END TITLE IV

 

Here is another chance for us to look into convincing society that ending Title IV will help. The message could be “Social Security should focus on only providing a safety net for the old and disabled not state court and welfare activities.” I think politicians could be convinced that the federal tax payers should not be paying for a purely state function due to the need for mobility of Social Security because of all the snow birds bouncing between states. Foster care, child support and welfare have little interstate components that could not be handled with the interstate compact process.

U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security

advertisement

A draft proposal by the deficit commission suggests curbing Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Obama to cut the U.S. deficit recommend raising the retirement age to 68. It is currently 67 years for retirees to receive full benefits. The panel leaders also propose reducing the annual cost-of-living increases in Social Security.

The increase to age 68 would be implemented by 2050 and then would increase again to 69 by 2075. A "hardship exception" would be provided for certain occupations where older retirement would be unrealistic.

According to a source who spoke to Fox News, the 18-member panel led by former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, also may propose reducing the base rate on corporate taxes, phasing in spending cuts over time, reducing foreign aid by $4.6 billion, freezing federal salaries for three years and banning congressional earmarks. It is unclear how the commissioners would define a congressional earmark.

The proposal would also set a tough target for curbing the growth of Medicare. And it recommends looking at eliminating popular tax breaks, such as mortgage interest deduction. The plan also calls for cuts in farm subsidies and the Pentagon's budget.

The goal is to reduce $1 trillion-plus budget deficits. The panel, which was meeting Wednesday, was expected to provide a full set of recommendations on Dec. 1. 

But any recommendations require a supermajority of 14 members of the panel for approval and that seems unlikely.

Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are anathema to liberals on the panel. Conservatives have difficulty with options on raising taxes.

"This is not a proposal I could support," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. "On Medicare and Social Security in particular, there are proposals that I could not support."

"It's a very provocative proposal," said GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. "Some of it I like. Some of it disturbs me. And some of it I've got to study."

Speaking to reporters after the draft leaked, Bowles said it would be great if Congress could come to some agreement about the plan before the next term, but said there is no need to vote on anything right now. The approved proposals would have to go to the Senate for a vote before heading to the House.

Bowles said he is certain that this is a real plan that Congress can work from, and the draft will help "educate the American people" as to the "massive" task before them.

Bowles also joked that he and Simpson are now headed into "the witness protection program." 

"This is the first time in my memory in Washington ... where it's all there. We have harpooned every whale," Simpson added. 

Fox News' Jim Angle and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Dearborn Hts MI Meeting 11-16-10

Dads Help Dads Monthly Meeting, 11/16/2010, 6:45 pm

Posted by: "Dadshelpdads@yahoogroups.com" Dadshelpdads@yahoogroups.com

Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:48 pm (PST)



Reminder from: Dadshelpdads Yahoo! Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dadshelpdads/cal

Dads Help Dads Monthly Meeting
Tuesday November 16, 2010
6:45 pm - 8:15 pm
(This event repeats every month on the third Tuesday until Saturday December 22, 2012.)
(The next reminder for this event will be sent in 7 days, 23 hours, 57 minutes.)
Location: Christus Victor 25535 Ford Rd. Dearborn Hts., Michigan
Street: 25535 Ford Rd.
City State Zip: Dearborn Hts., Michigan 48127
Phone: Daytime number 313.248.5278

Notes:
Park in the Back. Come in thru the door on the left. Follow the signs.

SCOTUS Acts on Child Support Enforcement

[direct links to the actual petition, some amicus briefs, and major media stories are included below]

=======

 

(Washington, DC) -- On November 1st, 2010, the United States Supreme Court finally **GRANTED** direct review over the various States' unconstitutional patterns and practices of repeatedly jailing beat-dead [indigent] noncustodial parents under child support "contempt" and without providing the otherwise well-established right to have defense counsel appointed them.

 

Groups filing amicus briefs in NCP Turner's support, so far (hint, hint..), have included the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, and The Constitution Project.  There are valid Letters from both principal opposing parties in this case, welcoming any and all amicus briefs, already on file with the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.

 

Amazingly, some of the professional amicus briefs filed by these groups have come straight out against this "modern form of debtor's prison" with very strong arguments, backed with solid case law... very promising, VERY exciting for all NCPs!!

 

While emerging from a plainly unconstitutional ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court, which inexplicably affirmed the draconian tactics used repeatedly upon NCP Michael Turner, the various amicus briefs filed so far are *already* implicating like ALL of the States -- in general -- and particularly THESE seven (7) other States for being in similar noncompliance with indigent civil rights, regarding appointments of defense counsel within contempt and/or similar state court actions:

 

"Just four other States--Florida, Georgia, Maine, and Ohio--are in the same camp as South Carolina. Courts in three other States--Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico--have adopted a third approach, requiring trial courts to determine on a caseby-case basis whether appointment of counsel is warranted."

 

Already, amicus briefs are involving both case law and statutes from many different States...  A couple of new individual parties have been granted leave to intervene or otherwise participate, as well.  This ***very important*** case is growing fast...  I am confident that within 60-90 days from now, you will see that at least several other major, well-known civil rights organizations, and probably some 30-40 of the various States' Attorneys General in opposition, will have filed each of their own respective amicus briefs into this case, too... maybe even all 50 of the AGs, but we'll see yet how it goes...

 

Accordingly, *now* is the time for interested family rights legal scholars/organizations to crank out their own amicus briefs, and/or select representative plaintiff(s)/intervenor(s) to enter directly into this case -- either way, and hopefully both ways!

 

 

PROPOSAL:

==========

 

Sets of three (3) different-named family rights organizations should work together on 2-3 related constitutional/legal issues, and submit JOINTLY-NAMED amicus briefs.  Even better, at least one male and one female, or more, who all happen to belong to, or work with, two or three different-named family rights organizations, should do the similar thing and move jointly to directly intervene, again with a purposefully JOINTLY-NAMED legal package submitted.

 

This important case has been filed primarily over the deprivation of the right to indigent defense counsel, the related "ability to pay" aspect in child support contempt proceedings, the jailings, and that general area of family court issues.  However, in the recent Order by the US Supreme Court on Nov. 1st, the Court requested parties/amicus to also brief the new additional Question -- "whether or not" the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling of the SC Supreme Court (duh...).

 

It is this Question that has "opened up the door" to creative minds, because there are at least *several* legal angles that combine: providing the Court its own federal jurisdiction, by raising any *directly-related* constitutional issues, such as:

 

(1) -- the reason that South Carolina's actions are sooo unlawful against NCP Turner, is because South Carolina has directly violated both federal and its own state CCPA laws (Consumer Credit Protection Act), by issuing ANY child support orders against someone who the state court itself classified as "unemployed", since CCPA laws mandate that those child support orders exceeding max percentages of NCP Turner's any available "disposable" income (i.e., none..) are simply VOID, in the first place.  In other words, most ALL of the States are routinely ignoring the mandatory protections of CCPA, and issuing onerous orders that far exceed the limits against available "disposable" income percentages, and all those orders are VOID, in the first place, and *cannot* be enforced, ever..., per the clearly express mandate of both federal *and* state CCPA laws!

 

(2) -- the federal Congress never had any *valid* authority, in the first place, to ever promulgate federal laws to manage and micro-manage family units, or the individuals of family units, so NONE of those programs (Title IV-A, IV-D, IV-E, etc., etc.) should even exist, in the first place...  Family Law has *always* been the sole province of the States, and never the realm of the Federal Government...  ever.   See also, arguments within several of the pending Health Care Reform lawsuits out there, for the reality that the federal Congress has been far exceeding its Constitutional authority under the "Commerce Clause" for a long, long time...  Therefore, since Congress' Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is unconstitutional, to begin with, then it is really the Federal Government's fault that poor NCP Turner is in such a pickle, in the first place, you see, by all the "carrot and stick" programs and activities funded by federal taxdollars.  Again, ALL of the *federalizations* of Family Law are invalid.

 

(3) -- also, the entire federalized Title IV-D child support enforcement scheme is a HUGELY fraudulent financial waste and catastrophic drain upon America, for 35 years now, costing **Trillions** of taxdollars over that span, to net back only in the very small Billions of extra C$ actually collected...  In other words, America would still have continued the prior ~80% paid in full of all child support out there, as America already had before the Fed got involved, yet, instead, America has poured out **Trillions** of taxdollars to collect only a few small extra Billions -- an actual return-of-investment that is NEGATIVE to the tune of at least hundreds-to-one, if not over 1000-to-1, in monetary LOSSES, every minute, of every hour, of every day...  The entire federal child support program is a HUGE financial fraud upon America, and always WAS..., from the mid-1970s start.

 

and, etc., each of which gives square and solid federal jurisdiction to a US Supreme Court that already well knows that it has jurisdiction....  You may also know of one or more other strong legal challenge angles into this very important case.

 

It also just so happens, that I have very direct and recent (May-June 2010) experience in the US Supreme Court over a few of these exact same issues, although my own client's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was another one of the 10,000 or 99% not picked this year for review (perhaps also because I scared the crap out of them with CCPA arguments, see this link):


Therefore, the organization that I created and co-founded, United Civil Rights Councils of America, will be surely seeking to cooperate jointly with another pair of willing/participating family rights organizations, using one or more of the above theories to file into this very important case, under either an amicus angle, or the straight-up intervention method, if the right one or more people are found to be intervenors fitting this case well.  Please contact me via email directly if you are interested.

 

 

LINKS TO LEGAL FILINGS AND ONLINE MEDIA STORIES:

============================================

(provided in chronological order, more or less)

 

Here is the original SC State Supreme Court ruling being reviewed by SCOTUS:

or, the same on FindLaw:

or, the official SC advance sheet containing the ruling, with other cases:

 

For interest, a November 30, 2009 ACLU article on the original defiant SC Supreme Court in this case:

 

The New York Times online story about this case:

 

Constitutional Law Blog story about this case:

 

OnTheDocket's story/info/links:

 

ABA Journal's article on this case:

 

The Nerve's *very* informative and up-to-date article, detailing the total factual background on this case well:

and, the Nerve's previous related story, published after the SC State Supreme Court's ruling was issued:

 

Here is the current SCOTUS Docket online listing:

 

Including this same Turner v Price case, an outlined organization of most/all other cases being reviewed by SCOTUS during this 2010-2011 Term - i.e., what other current SCOTUS cases might be either directly and/or indirectly related and useful:

 

One of few online places to normally get copies of, or to review, the various Briefs filed into SCOTUS cases:

(unfortunately, briefs not there for this case yet - has the Questions, though)

Turner v. Price, Docket No. 10-10
Questions Presented -- Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding - in conflict with twenty-two federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort - that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration.
Questions presented -- In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "does this US Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"

 

BRIEFS FOUND ONLINE:

The original Turner petition for writ of certiorari in the US Supreme Court (3.67mb):

The older combo ACLU-NACDL-etc-etc amicus brief, filed in NCP Turner's support, at the SC State Supreme Court:

Their newer amicus brief filed into the US Supreme Court recently:

Snipets/links to all of NACDL's current/recent briefs, fyi:

An amicus brief filed by The Constitution Project into this SCOTUS case:

 

One of the authorities cited in the original Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Urban Institute's report on child support arrears:

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001242.html (excerpt, with link for full report download in PDF)

 

The recent US Supreme Court's interim/new Order, from the free version of Lexus-Nexus, i.e, http://LexisOne.com

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485,*
Michael D. Turner, Petitioner v. Rebecca Price, et al.
No. 10-10.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485
November 1, 2010, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:   Price v. Turner, 387 S.C. 142, 691 S.E.2d 470, 2010 S.C. LEXIS 83 (S.C., 2010)
JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan.
OPINION:
The motion of Larry E. Price, Sr. for leave to intervene is granted. The motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties is directed to brief and argue the following question: "Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"

 

 

Related, I have provided this online Publix Law Schools legal learning center, free for everyone's use and benefit:

 

 

 

Sincerest Regards,
------------------------------------------
Mr. Torm Howse
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
United Civil Rights Councils of America
http://unitedcivilrights.org
Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
http://paao-us.com
Founder, Owner, President,
The FIDO Network
http://fidonetwork.com
General Contact:
(317) 286-2538 office
(888) 738-4643 fax
indianacrc@earthlink.net
 
Increase Your FAITH!