Australia: Family law change 'puts kids at extra risk'

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/family-law-change-puts-kids-at-extra-risk/story-fn59niix-1226048738629

Family law change 'puts kids at extra risk'

• Patricia Karvelas
• From: The Australian
• May 03, 2011 12:00AM
• 23 comments

THE Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has warned the Gillard government that the changes to family law before parliament would reopen many cases and put children at extra risk by log-jamming the courts and adding stress to families.

The danger in the government's bill is that the laws can be applied to cases that had largely been heard, Chief Justice Bryant states in a submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation.

The retrospectivity meant any cases that may have been largely heard but not finally decided could be reopened with new evidence, and this could cause delay in the delivery of reasons for judgment.

"Cases involving actual violence or abuse or the risk of harm to children are precisely those cases that need to be brought on quickly, heard in a timely manner and finalised so that appropriate protective arrangements can be put in place," Chief Justice Bryant said. "It would be most unfortunate indeed if a consequence of the amendments, which are designed to improve responsiveness to family violence, was to place vulnerable children at risk of harm through delay . . .."

A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said family violence measures would operate prospectively, but might affect matters before the courts that were not finally determined. "The government considers the need to protect children from harm should be the most important consideration," the spokesman said.

The bill came before parliament after the Gillard government watered down its original proposal, which deleted the shared parenting provision at the centre of the Howard government's 2006 family law reforms. But the Senate inquiry has exposed more potential flaws.

Under proposed new arrangements, the Family Court will still have to consider whether divorced parents have encouraged a close and continuing relationship between the child and their former partner when awarding custody.

In changes since the first draft of the bill were circulated last November, the definition now contains a general characterisation of harmful behaviour instead of an exhaustive listing.

Family law professor Patrick Parkinson, the architect of the Howard government's original family law changes, argues the new broad definition of violence is still flawed and could be abused.

In his submission he argues the opening words of the definition require that the behaviour complained of "coerces or controls" a family member. He says this is flawed because it does not say that the person accused of such behaviour needs to have the intention of coercing or controlling.

"It would certainly be problematic if someone could be held to have engaged in 'violent' behaviour without intending to do so, because his or her former partner felt coerced or controlled," Professor Parkinson argues.

He also objects to the requirement in the bill to consider family violence orders, arguing family violence is seen by many as a "weapon in the war between parents".

"There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes," he says

Related Coverage

• Breaking up: it's not me, it is you The Australian, 1 day ago
• Parental conflict to be considered abusive The Australian, 1 day ago
• Fears family law change will hurt kids Adelaide Now, 8 days ago
• Darcey's Law to protect other children Herald Sun, 29 Mar 2011
• Family law revamp keeps shared care The Australian, 23 Mar 2011

May 6, 2011 Press Release: Linda Marie Sacks Filed Today in The US Supreme Court -- Historic Moment for all of America’s “Protective Parents”

May 6, 2011

Press Release

HISTORIC CASE FILED IN THE US SUPREME COURT IN THE US SUPREME COURT IN WASHINGTON DC TODAY

In a landmark case, the Sacks v. Sacks case was accepted today at the US Supreme Court in Washington DC. Linda Marie Sacks, a Florida Mother  hand delivered  her 40 Petition for Certiorari, all wrapped in Red, White, and Blue American Flag ribbon.  She said “This is an historic moment for all of America’s “Protective Parents” and their children who are not being protected by the “official avenues” who are supposed to protect them, judges, police and the Dept. of Family and Children. I am truly the all American Mom, and never did I ever imagine, that I could lose custody of my children for believing them and trying to protect. The Family Court system is giving pedophiles and batterers custody, and the safe, fit “protective parents” rights are terminated, or like me are placed on supervised visitation for years without a case plan or reunification plan”.

She is a pro se litigant, and many years ago was quoted in the Momlogic.com article that she had her sights on the US Supreme Court if the family court did not return her children to her, as they were “legally kidnapped in April 2007 by Judge Shawn L. Briese. His ruling was REVERSED and REMANDED in 08/08 due to her constitutional rights to due process being violated,  but this rare reversal provided no relief as Judge Briese refused to vacate the supervised visitation order or protect the minor children.

The last time a case similar to this was presented was the Wendy Titelman case. Wendy wrote a book titled “A Mothers Journal” Let my Children Go! And it’s all about child placed in the custody of their abusive parent and the failure of Cobb County GA to protect her children. The book is included in the Sacks Cert Petition, on page 38 and it quotes Hon. Sol. Gothard when he says “the problems expressed in Wendy’s book are epidemic and widespread.

These types of case and outcomes are noted by the DOJ, and OVW, as well as national advocates and Mothers all over the US.

Sacks is only allowed to see her children for 2 hours a month at the local visitation center the 2^nd and 4^th Saturday for 1 hour. This has only amounted to 82 hours in 4years and 2months.

Sacks, is a “squeaky clean”, mom, and before the April 2007 ruling by Judge Briese, she was her daughter’s primary care giver, and a loving caring Mother, as well as their class mom, soccer mom, car pool Mom, community volunteer, with no drugs, no alcohol, no abuse, no infidelity, and she lost physical custody of her children, and all she did was try to protect them. The trial court dismissed, ignored, and suppresses credible evidence of child sexual and physical abuse.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals with Judge Evander, Judge Torphy and Judge Cohen, affirmed Judge Briese’s ruling and now this is an historical case being presented to the US Supreme Court.

Her daughter’s teacher said “America better wake up, and you of all Mothers can lose custody, it can happen to anyone”. This crisis is noted by the Dept. of Justice.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney General,  at the DOJ, Dept. of Justice  is quoted on page 37 of the Sacks Petition for Certiorari, as she notes his speech to the National Summit on Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment and asks the question, “Why are battered mothers losing custody of their children to the courts or child protective services”. (http://justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090602.html).

The Sacks case is a Justice for Children case and they advocate for children when “official avenues have failed to protect them”, judges, police, Department of Children and Family, (www.justiceforchildren.org)

The Leadership Council, states that 58,000 are court-ordered to live with a sexually or physically abusive parent after a divorce in the U.S. and considers this a “public health crisis” for America’s children.(www.leadershipcouncil.org) and is also included on page 24.

The CPPA, California Protective Parent Association, Connie Valentine and Karen Andersen, site case studies where a pattern is evident and have asked for Congressional Hearings to address this crisis.( www.protectiveparent.com) CPPA is on page 34 and 35 of the petition before the US Supreme Court.

On March 2, 2011, Peter Jamison from the SF Weekly published an article “ILLEGAL GUARDIANS” When Judges Give Custody To Abusive Parents the Family Court System is broken. This article documents child sexual abuse cases and the identified perpetrator/ pedophile will get Sole Physical Custody of the minor child(ren), and the safe protective parent, will be restricted to supervised visitation or all contact will be terminated. It’s on page 24 and 25 of the Cert as well. (sf.weekly.com)

This national case  clearly shows how fit parent’s all over the U.S. are being be deprived of a relationship with their children, and this case exposes the national crisis for America’s children who are victims of child sexual abuse and or physical abuse, and the failure of family courts to protect them.

This is a liberty right protected by the United States Constitution, for a parent-child relationship, but not protected by family courts or CPS all over the U.S.

The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee are   addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011,  “and explore what can happen to  a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.

The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the article.(www.now.org) Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter.

O Magazine, by Oprah, 10/06 article by Jan Goodwin, “Please Daddy No”, Stopping Court Ordered Parental Child Sexual Abuse is quoted on page 37. (www.jangoodwin.com/articles/pleasedaddyno.pdf)

Dr.Phil has also addressed this crisis on 04/14/10, “America’s Family Courts System Failing It’s Citizens”. (http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1442/) and Sacks references this on page 37 in the case before the US Supreme Court.

This latest research is available in the book “Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, Legal Strategies and Policy Issues” by Editors: Dr. Mo Therese Hanna Ph.d and Barry Goldstein, J.D. and is included in the Sacks petition on page 34 (www.domesticviolenceabuseandchildcsutody.com)

Catherine Pierce, then Acting Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, in 2008 is quoted on page 12 and 13 of the Sacks Cert Petition, in her speech to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary It was “The Importance of the Violence against Women Act”. Pierce  states “the complicated issue of child custody presents another challenge involving the intersection of children and domestic violence. Battered women losing custody of the children is a serious and growing problem”. http://tinyurl.com/3qbx91c

In the Sacks case, the “Court appointed” psychologist, Dr. Deborah O. Day of Psychological Affiliates is quoted on page 5 as she stated “that it is this examiner’s opinion that this child is experiencing a significant mental health crisis, likely to pediatric bipolar, and therefore that negates any child sexual abuse”. Then she thwarted the investigation by the police department and DCF, Dept. of Children and Family. The child never had pediatric bipolar, but yet Dr. Day falsely labeled her, and provided false and misleading information to the court, and failed to protect the minor children.

Linda Marie’s daughter in April 2007, said “Mommy fight for us, and do something every day to get us back, and don’t ever stop”. This Florida Mother has kept her promise to her daughter’s and now is speaking on behalf of America’s children and their “protective parents”.

Mothers Day in Washington DC is bringing in Mothers and Advocates from all over the US

Mothers of Lost Children and their supporters are having a speak out and candlelight vigil on Mother’s Day May 8^th , 2011 at the White House.

6:00 PM-9:30 PM

6:00 PM Speak out 7;00 PM March

7:45 Candlelight Vigil,

Information will be available Sunday Night about Monday’s activities.

Another event will take place for the Million Mom March in the afternoon. American Mothers Political Party Rep. is Linda Marie Sacks 386-453-3017

The Sacks v. Sacks case is cert worthy as this is a national crisis for “protective parents” and their children all over the US.

For more information:

Please call:

Linda Marie Sacks

386-453-3017

For Press

Please contact:

Kathleen Russell

Executive Director

Center for Judicial Excellence

495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

Alaina Giordano Should Not Lose Her Kids Because She Has Breast Cancer

 

Check out the ABC news story on a mom with breast cancer - who is also DV victim per the written article below - who lost custody based on a psych report.

There are many psychologists that are well known for taking children away from mothers so the fathers can have custody. It's one of America's Dirty Little Secrets. You will find many others with similar stories. See reports use the same language for different moms. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator.html

Seecrazy reasons for moms to lose custody http://www.custodyprepformoms.org/lrflc.php

Custody Evaluator - Case Study A   www.thelizlibrary.org custody evaluator, child custody report, custody evaluation guidelines, forensic custody evaluation

###

Like her face book Page which was started today and already has  2,053 people like this—the power of the www—and social media for human rights change. : http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alaina-Giordano-Should-Not-Lose-Her-Kids-Because-She-Has-Breast-Cancer/127024814041233?sk=wall

A judge has ruled that Alaina must give up both her children to her soon-to-be ex-husband on June 17th (so they can move to Chicago for his job) because she has Stage 4 Breast Cancer and there is no telling "how long she will live."
Alaina is strong, physically well, and gets monthly treatments. Her cancer is controlled-which means it's stable and not progressing. Not to mention- Durham, N.C. is home of the Duke Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.duke.edu/) where Alaina has her top-notch medical team. Alaina has a strong support system for her children in Durham, N.C. compared to Chicago- where there will be NO ONE besides the father of the children.
This is unfair, unjust, and needs to be stopped. No children should be taken away from their mother because of Breast Cancer. Alaina's battle against cancer should be the ONLY battle she should be fighting.
The PURPOSE of this Fanpage is to raise awareness in the media: television, newspaper, talk shows, etc. Please feel free to post links to webpages, phone numbers, or anywhere else on this page that might help our fight. This ruling MUST be overturned. We will fight this battle FOR Alaina so she can work on her #1 priority: staying healthy and being with her children.

Website http://beautyintruth-alaina.blogspot.com

###

Check out the ABC news story on a mom with breast cancer - who is also DV victim per the written article below - who lost custody based on a psych report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/mom-with-cancer-loses-child-custody-battle-13544447

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8036947/breast_cancer_mom_loses_custody_of.html

###

 

Breast Cancer Mom Loses Custody of Children

Priscilla Benfield, Yahoo! Contributor Network
May 6, 2011 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

Alaina Giordano's story about her desperate battle to win back her children sounds too unbelievable to be true. A mother with breast cancer loses custody of her children during her divorce trial. A judge (a female judge) states that she is uncomfortable with the fact that the mother doesn't know when she will die so she rules to give custody to the father. (see more here) In June, her soon-to-be ex-husband will be able to move them out of North Carolina to Illinois where he has been living and working since August of 2010.

Certainly this is a case of discrimination. According to the court order, the judge felt that it would not be good for the children to be with their mother in Durham because of her breast cancer diagnosis. The judge also factored in that Alaina is currently unemployed.
Alaina may have stage 4 breast cancer but the cancer is contained. Her doctors at the Duke Cancer Institute are amazed at how well she is doing. She cannot jeopardize her treatment by moving out of Durham and finding a new treatment center. She currently gets monthly treatments for her cancer but as you can see in this recent television interview, she does not look like she is dying. see video of interview here

Over 1800 people have "liked" the Facebook page that was set up by a childhood friend of Alaina's in order to get support for this injustice. People are outraged over the idea that a judge and a father would use a woman's breast cancer diagnosis to rip these children from their mother. A petition has also been started to get the governor of North Carolina to review this case. The support from total strangers is overwhelming. From breast cancer survivors to people whose own mothers had breast cancer, everyone is in agreement that taking the children away from this mother will do more harm than good.

In every divorce case there are two sides of the story. I have personally interviewed Alaina Giordano. I have also reached out to the father of the children on my blog where I first talked about this case. For legal and moral reasons, it is difficult for me to share all that I know.

Alaina is a woman who is extremely protective of her family. She moved from Pennsylvania with her family after she got her cancer diagnosis because her husband expressed an interest in furthering his education.

While living in North Carolina, (since July 2008) the children have put down roots. Alaina has been receiving cancer treatments at Duke Cancer Institute, one of the best treatment facilities in the world. In the May of 2009, her husband took a job in Georgia, leaving the family behind for 4 months. He would fly out to see the family on weekends but he never gave her an address of where he was living.

When he was home, there were frequent arguments and there are documented calls that were made by Alaina to the National Domestic Violence hotline and the Durham Crisis Response Center. Like many victims of domestic violence, Alaina's fears kept her from standing up for herself.
In January of 2010 her husband announced that he was going to take a job in the Chicago area and Alaina stood up to him and told him that she did not want to move. Her cancer treatments are in North Carolina at Duke Cancer Institute and how could she leave while still in treatment? She has no support system in Illinois, unlike in Durham, North Carolina where she has supportive friends and trusted doctors. He responded by filing for full custody of the children and a separation. Unbeknownst to her, he had a lawyer on retainer.
Even though she had witnesses and proof of domestic violence, the judge did not pay attention and in the order said that domestic violence was not an issue. The children's father made many accusations that he did not have to back up with any kind of proof. It appears that he had more money to spend on legal representation than Alaina did and that hurt her. Like many women who go through a divorce, Alaina found that he had been keeping a secret bank account.
Alaina needs to file an appeal with the court in order to reverse this decision but has no attorney to help her. She desperately needs a lawyer who is willing to go the distance and fight against a judge who is biased against a cancer patient.

The real issue here is that two children, ages 5 and 11, will be taken away from their mother who has been their primary caregiver for much of their young lives. These children have already been coping with their mother's cancer and their father's frequent absences. Is it fair and just to take these children from their mother just because she is battling cancer and may not win her battle?

The argument can be made that each one of us is dying from the moment we are born and no one knows when our time is up. Having a diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence. Many women survive breast cancer often against unbeatable odds. Alaina's cancer is contained, which for now means she is winning. She has a medical team at the Duke Cancer Institute that she trusts which is important for a successful battle against her breast cancer.

This is not just another ugly custody battle between two divorcing people. This is a story of a mother with breast cancer whose rights have been violated and who has been victimized not just by her husband but by the justice system. It is also a tragic story of two innocent children whose best interests are not being taken into account.
There is still time to undo this by getting involved and having your voice heard. Cancer should not be a factor in what kind of mother you can be. Alaina's children need their mother for as long as she is meant to be here.

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/mom-with-cancer-loses-child-custody-battle-13544447

Linda Marie Sacks files on Mothers Day Weekend - A HISTORIC US SUPREME COURT CASE – On behalf of Battered Mothers Nationally

5.5.11

May 5, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS CONFERENCE May 6th, 2011 at 12 Noon

Location:

US Supreme Court  

One First Street, NE                                                                                            

Washington, DC 20543                                                                                           

Sidewalk in front of the US Supreme Court

HISTORIC US SUPREME COURT CASE

Child Advocates and Legal Scholars are anxiously awaiting the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 6, 2011 at 12 noon at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in the Sacks v. Sacks case.

This truly will be an  Historic Day at the US Supreme Court, for  America’s children and their “Protective Parents”, as this landmark case is being hand delivered by a Florida Mother and exposes a national crisis all over the US.

The Sacks v. Sacks case is the perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to thoroughly explore and address the issue of Battered Mothers and child abuse, and their documented evidence of “protective parents” losing custody  and the failure of family courts and Child Protective Services to thoroughly investigate and handle Domestic Violence, child sexual/and or child physical abuse cases properly, therefore resulting in a verdict, contrary to the “bests interests of the child(ren)”.

Kathleen Russell, from the Center for Judicial Excellence, in the California Progress Report, on 10/19/09 “When Family Courts Get It Wrong”, says “When a parent harms his or her own child, family courts are supposed to step in and safeguard the victim. Can you imagine what a tragedy it would be if courts awarded custody to the wrong parent Actually according to one conservative estimate, more than 58, 000 children a year are court ordered by family courts into unsupervised visitation contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following a divorce in the U.S. The fact that this type of scandal is taking place in the American justice system defies the imagination. Not since the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the US seen this type of institutional harm inflicted on innocent children.” (www.centerforjudicalexcelllence.org)

The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee are  addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011,  “and explore what can happen to  a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.

The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the article.(www.now.org) Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter.

On April 21, 2011,  in the BMCCVI Digest Number 2011, reports that Eileen King representing Justice for Children participated in the Office of Violence Against Women Roundtable Discussion that took place at George Washington University Law School. The Roundtable was organized by Rita Smith, the Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Prof. Joan Meier, Director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DVLEAP) at GWU Law School. OVW will post a report about the Roundtable on their website in the near future. (www.justiceforchildren.org) and (www.dvleap.org)

As noted by Barry Goldstein, Esq. The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) is part of the US Justice Department that provides grants for programs to reduce and prevent domestic violence. They recently sponsored a forum for their staff and other professionals in various parts of the government to learn about the crisis in the custody court system.

“It was a discussion based upon current scientific research and actual experiences that courts are routinely making catastrophic mistakes in failing to protect children and domestic violence survivors.

Linda Marie Sacks, a Florida Mother, truly the “All American Mom”, has only seen her children at the Family Tree House Visitation Center for  82 hours in the last 4 years and 2 months, is challenging the “Best Interests of The Children” Statute 61.13,  as Domestic Violence, child sexual and physical abuse must be considered in a judge’s decision determining the “Best Interests of the Children”. In the Pro se Cert  Petition, Sacks raises  the constitutional implications of a fit parent to the care, custody, of her children, and without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, established by the US Supreme Court ruling in Santosky v. Kramer, U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982).

Her daughters said in April 2007, “Mommy fight for us and do something every day to get us back and don’t ever stop”. Their Mother not only kept her promise to them, but now is a national spokesperson on the child custody crisis, and is speaking up for her children, and all of America’s children affected by the failure of our justice system to protect our most innocent children from sexual and physical abuse. She is a formidable legal opponent, as she has been self taught, going to “Internet Law School” to continue her legal challenge after spending $140,000 to undo an unjust custody decision. The Fifth District Court of Appeals REVERSED and REMANDED the issue of child custody back to the lower court  for a violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights to due process, in 08/08. This rare reversal provided no relief as the lower court of Judge Shawn L. Briese refused to abide by the Appeals court and refused to protect the children and said one child lied about being sexually abused.

In an article by John Weiss, from Post-Bulletin, Rochester, MN , “Do children lie about sexual abuse? Not Usually.” Children do lie, but seldom about being abused. “All human beings can and do lie, but it’s hard for kids to do it about sex”, said Victor Vieth, the director of the national Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University. “They can’t lie about something they have no knowledge of” he said, and children don’t learn about oral sex from Sesame Street.

Dr. Deborah Day of Psychological Affiliates, the court ordered custody evaluator said the minor child at 8 years old had pediatric bipolar and that negates any child sexual abuse, and then  thwarted the DCF investigation. The court record clearly showed that the child DID NOT have bipolar, but  the trial court still refused to protect the children, which is typical from cases all over the US.

One day justice will prevail for America’s children. Could it be in the Sacks v. Sacks case?

National Advocacy groups and Mothers will be attending events to shed light on this crisis in America’s Courts.

Mothers Day, May 8th, 2011  in Washington DC will also have the Mothers of Lost Children from 6-9:30 PM at the White House.

AMERICAN MOTHERS POLITICAL PARTY contact

6:00-9:30 p.m.

6:00 pm speak out

7:00 pm march

7:45 Candlelight vigil

Information will be available on Sunday night about activities on Monday.

And another group will be having the:

Million Mom March Mother’s Day 2011 in Washington DC

Feb 152011

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Million-Mom-March-Mothers-Day-2011-in-Washington-DC/153380204718360?sk=info

CONTACT:

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/

The Sacks v. Sacks is an historic case.

Linda Marie Sacks

386-453-3017

For more information and press

Please contact:

Kathleen Russell

Executive Director

Center for Judicial Excellence

495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

IMPORTANT: CJE DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. The information in this e-mail is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of any particular legal matter. If you have a legal problem, seek professional legal counsel.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/american-mothers-political-party/linda-marie-sacks-headed-to-dc/207002596001185

Links to this post

Linda Marie Sacks files on Mothers Day Weekend - A HISTORIC US SUPREME COURT CASE – On behalf of Battered Mothers Nationally

May 5, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS CONFERENCE May 6th, 2011 at 12 Noon

Location:

US Supreme Court   

One First Street, NE                                                                                             

Washington, DC 20543                                                                                            

Sidewalk in front of the US Supreme Court

 

HISTORIC US SUPREME COURT CASE

 

Child Advocates and Legal Scholars are anxiously awaiting the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 6, 2011 at 12 noon at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in the Sacks v. Sacks case.

This truly will be an  Historic Day at the US Supreme Court, for  America’s children and their “Protective Parents”, as this landmark case is being hand delivered by a Florida Mother and exposes a national crisis all over the US.

The Sacks v. Sacks case is the perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to thoroughly explore and address the issue of Battered Mothers and child abuse, and their documented evidence of “protective parents” losing custody  and the failure of family courts and Child Protective Services to thoroughly investigate and handle Domestic Violence, child sexual/and or child physical abuse cases properly, therefore resulting in a verdict, contrary to the “bests interests of the child(ren)”.

Kathleen Russell, from the Center for Judicial Excellence, in the California Progress Report, on 10/19/09 “When Family Courts Get It Wrong”, says “When a parent harms his or her own child, family courts are supposed to step in and safeguard the victim. Can you imagine what a tragedy it would be if courts awarded custody to the wrong parent Actually according to one conservative estimate, more than 58, 000 children a year are court ordered by family courts into unsupervised visitation contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following a divorce in the U.S. The fact that this type of scandal is taking place in the American justice system defies the imagination. Not since the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the US seen this type of institutional harm inflicted on innocent children.” (www.centerforjudicalexcelllence.org)

The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee are  addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011,  “and explore what can happen to  a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.

The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the article.(www.now.org) Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter.

On April 21, 2011,  in the BMCCVI Digest Number 2011, reports that Eileen King representing Justice for Children participated in the Office of Violence Against Women Roundtable Discussion that took place at George Washington University Law School. The Roundtable was organized by Rita Smith, the Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Prof. Joan Meier, Director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DVLEAP) at GWU Law School. OVW will post a report about the Roundtable on their website in the near future. (www.justiceforchildren.org) and (www.dvleap.org)

As noted by Barry Goldstein, Esq. The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) is part of the US Justice Department that provides grants for programs to reduce and prevent domestic violence. They recently sponsored a forum for their staff and other professionals in various parts of the government to learn about the crisis in the custody court system.

“It was a discussion based upon current scientific research and actual experiences that courts are routinely making catastrophic mistakes in failing to protect children and domestic violence survivors.

Linda Marie Sacks, a Florida Mother, truly the “All American Mom”, has only seen her children at the Family Tree House Visitation Center for  82 hours in the last 4 years and 2 months, is challenging the “Best Interests of The Children” Statute 61.13,  as Domestic Violence, child sexual and physical abuse must be considered in a judge’s decision determining the “Best Interests of the Children”. In the Pro se Cert  Petition, Sacks raises  the constitutional implications of a fit parent to the care, custody, of her children, and without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, established by the US Supreme Court ruling in Santosky v. Kramer, U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982).

Her daughters said in April 2007, “Mommy fight for us and do something every day to get us back and don’t ever stop”. Their Mother not only kept her promise to them, but now is a national spokesperson on the child custody crisis, and is speaking up for her children, and all of America’s children affected by the failure of our justice system to protect our most innocent children from sexual and physical abuse. She is a formidable legal opponent, as she has been self taught, going to “Internet Law School” to continue her legal challenge after spending $140,000 to undo an unjust custody decision. The Fifth District Court of Appeals REVERSED and REMANDED the issue of child custody back to the lower court  for a violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights to due process, in 08/08. This rare reversal provided no relief as the lower court of Judge Shawn L. Briese refused to abide by the Appeals court and refused to protect the children and said one child lied about being sexually abused.

In an article by John Weiss, from Post-Bulletin, Rochester, MN , “Do children lie about sexual abuse? Not Usually.” Children do lie, but seldom about being abused. “All human beings can and do lie, but it’s hard for kids to do it about sex”, said Victor Vieth, the director of the national Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University. “They can’t lie about something they have no knowledge of” he said, and children don’t learn about oral sex from Sesame Street.

Dr. Deborah Day of Psychological Affiliates, the court ordered custody evaluator said the minor child at 8 years old had pediatric bipolar and that negates any child sexual abuse, and then  thwarted the DCF investigation. The court record clearly showed that the child DID NOT have bipolar, but  the trial court still refused to protect the children, which is typical from cases all over the US.

One day justice will prevail for America’s children. Could it be in the Sacks v. Sacks case?

National Advocacy groups and Mothers will be attending events to shed light on this crisis in America’s Courts.

Mothers Day, May 8th, 2011  in Washington DC will also have the Mothers of Lost Children from 6-9:30 PM at the White House.

 

AMERICAN MOTHERS POLITICAL PARTY contact

 

6:00-9:30 p.m.

6:00 pm speak out

7:00 pm march

7:45 Candlelight vigil

Information will be available on Sunday night about activities on Monday.

And another group will be having the:

Million Mom March Mother’s Day 2011 in Washington DC

Feb 152011

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Million-Mom-March-Mothers-Day-2011-in-Washington-DC/153380204718360?sk=info

CONTACT:

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/

 

The Sacks v. Sacks is an historic case.

Linda Marie Sacks

386-453-3017

For more information and press

Please contact:

Kathleen Russell

Executive Director

Center for Judicial Excellence

495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

 

www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

IMPORTANT: CJE DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. The information in this e-mail is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of any particular legal matter. If you have a legal problem, seek professional legal counsel.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/american-mothers-political-party/linda-marie-sacks-headed-to-dc/207002596001185

This is an OUTRAGE!! Free Melinda Stratton now!!!

Melinda Stratton: Another Mother 'Hunted' Down

Daddy ‘Ken Thompson’ is an alleged ABUSER who ‘hunts’ his victims down.

American Mothers Political Party

Join with Australian Mothers Political Party

in support of Melinda Stratton and HER son Andrew

There is much going on around the www about Melinda STRATTONand HER son Andrew (not Melinda Thomas -her Male oppressors’ Name and slave master) as AngieMedia a  Fathers Rights site (with a woman’s name)–again wrongly reports.

READ MORE HERE: Melinda Stratton: Another Mother 'Hunted' Down http://bit.ly/h5SIUO

 

No mother is a criminal for raising her own child. Parental Alienation a bogus label to falsely stigmatize women & children who want to be free. Similar to the false mental disorder of Drapetomania given to slaves who wanted to be free from their masters. Anyone who tries to take a child from their mother is a MONSTER. Nature made mothers the natural guardian, patriarchy enslaves women & treats children as property.

 

MOTHER COMMITTED TO STAND TRIAL

A 49-year-old mother has told a Sydney magistrate she fled Australia to protect her son and did not intend to remain living illegally in Europe for so long.

Melinda Margaret Thompson was on Wednesday committed to stand trial in the NSW District Court on charges relating to taking her child out of Australia without permission.

At her last appearance, she had elected to waive committal proceedings, meaning the matter would go straight to trial.

In Central Local Court on Wednesday, the wife of former NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson told Magistrate Leigh Gilmour she was pleading not guilty because leaving the country "was an act of defence".

During the hearing, Thompson made her own submissions to Ms Gilmour for a second bail application on the grounds of new information.

"I did flee Australia in order to protect my son and I have pleaded not guilty as my act of leaving Australia was an act of defence," she said, via video link from Silverwater women's jail.

"It was never my intention to remain living illegally in Europe for so long."

She said she had been advised she would only receive a sentence of up to one year and had already spent eight months in maximum security.

"I would like to contest I should be expecting a long jail term," she said.

Ms Gilmour said the previous magistrate had already considered the issues Thompson raised, which precluded her from hearing the bail application.

At Thompson's last hearing, the crown had opposed bail.

Magistrate Gilmour set the matter over to the Downing Centre District Court for May 13.

Mr Thompson, 66, in 2010 launched an international search for his son who went missing in 2008.

His search through Europe by bicycle ended when the then six-year-old was found last year in The Netherlands.

Male caregivers scrutinized in violent deaths of children

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/02/child-abuse-neglect-study/

Male caregivers scrutinized in violent deaths of children

by Sasha Aslanian, Minnesota Public Radio

May 2, 2011

LISTEN

EMBED | HELP

St. Paul, Minn. — A state-mandated study into child deaths and near-fatal injuries found men to blame two-thirds of the time.

The Child Mortality Review Board examined more than 200 preventable deaths of Minnesota children between 2005 and 2009.

Most of the cases chosen for review were homicides, or near-fatal inflicted injuries of children due to child maltreatment. But the board also reviewed accidents, such as drownings, unexplained infant deaths, and suicides.

In many cases, infants and toddlers were being cared for by unemployed fathers, stepfathers or boyfriends of the mothers. As a result, the study could prompt new scrutiny of men from child protection workers.

The board examined 71 cases involving fatal or near-fatal inflicted injuries. Three-quarters of the deaths involved children under age four.

FEMALES ASSOCIATED WITH NEGLECT, MALES WITH ABUSE

Female caregivers were most often the offenders in cases that involved neglect. But males were often the offenders in abuse cases, said Erin Sullivan Sutton, assistant commissioner for children and family services for the state Department of Human Services.

According to the report, 51 percent of the offenders who lived in the same household as the child were unemployed. Often they abused alcohol or drugs.

Half the incidents involved children under one year old. The most common cause of death was abusive head trauma or shaken baby syndrome.

Authorities and health officials have done a lot to educate the public about shaken baby syndrome. State law requires new parents to watch a video about how vulnerable infant brains are to shaking or blunt force before leaving the hospital, and health care providers bring it up at every well-baby visit until a child is three years old. Child care providers receive training.

But Sullivan Sutton said many potential caregivers don't receive that kind of training, so it falls to mothers to make sure they are leaving their children in safe hands.

"If mom knows that a caregiver or potential care giver has a potential for violence, has hit her or hit somebody else then she shouldn't leave the baby with that individual," she said. "If the person doesn't have experience caring for infants, that's not a good situation.

The report describes adults frustrated and angry by a child's crying, feeding, sleeping or toileting problems.

"We see kids are crying because they're hungry, kids are crying because they have soiled diapers and that crying is what triggers the violence," Sullivan Sutton said.

PARENTING EDUCATION VITAL

Becky Dale, interim director of Prevent Child Abuse Minnesota said the report it speaks to a need to educate the whole community about what it takes to care for children.

"It's a really fast learning curve when you become a parent," Dale said. "And one thing I noticed about the report was there wasn't any reference to education about child development before people become parents."

Dale suggests parenting education could start much earlier. Junior high students could learn how to comfort a crying baby, or about safe sleeping arrangements that won't smother a baby.

Given how often a child is killed by woman's boyfriend or unprepared father while the mother is at work, there are opportunities to improve children's lives, said Marcie Jeffrys, director of policy development for the Children's Defense Fund.

"I think we really need to look at our child care policies if we want to address those kids who are being left alone maybe with an adult who just isn't equipped emotionally to take care of them," she said.

Jeffrys said cuts in child care assistance mean fewer families have good options for safe places to leave their children, particularly those that have low-wage jobs. She notes that between 2003 and 2009, annual state spending for child care assistance decreased by one-fifth, and 4,000 families are currently on the waiting list.

Better child care could probably help, but it likely won't eliminate the danger these children are in, Jeffrys said.

Later this year, child protection workers will add some new questions to their risk assessments. They'll ask if a male is alone in caring for a child under three and if he's employed.

After two years of gathering data, the Department of Human Services will decide whether those factors should be weighed in determining the risk the child is in.