Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally

By Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Chairman of the Board of Directors

Spud McConnell, a well-known movie actor, also hosts a popular New Orleans talk radio show, Talk Gumbo on New Orleans radio station WWL—AM 870/FM105.3. On February 28, 2012, Fathers and Families’ Chairman of the Board Ned Holstein, MD, appeared on the show to discuss new child support rules promulgated by the federal government.
Listen to interview.

In yet another measure that will harm children instead of helping them, the new rule effects how much money can be seized for payment of child support arrearages from people who receive federal benefits, such as social security, disability and veterans’ payments.

Currently, the states can ask the federal government to “garnish” money from checks the federal government is writing to those who receive benefits for the purpose of paying child support arrearages. In other words, money can be taken out of the check before it is ever written. The states can receive that money, and the individual gets a smaller check. The federal government limits the “garnish” to 65% of the check.

Under new rules that are slated to go into effect in March, 2013, the federal government will pay such benefits electronically. There will be no checks. The money will simply appear in the bank account of the recipient. And that’s where the problem lies. Because there is no limit on how much money the states can seize from the bank account of the people who owe child support. They can — and will — take it all, leaving the recipient of federal benefits no funds to live on.

This will cause tens of thousands of elderly, disabled, and veterans to become homeless. It is even worse, because most of the money collected will be kept by the states for their own purposes; it will never go to a mother or child. In many cases, the arrearages are very, very old. The children for whom the child support is allegedly being collected are grown. And much of the money owed is accumulated interest and fees. These accumulate during the long years that poor people are unable to pay their child support order, or have been disabled or laid off.

Internal memos show that the treasury department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the state child support collection agencies are all aware of what will happen next March. Apparently, they just don’t care.

Ned Holstein

Here is what our readers need to understand. No one is going to save us from these abuses. There is no wise judge, dedicated advocate for the poor, or civil rights advocate who is going to save us. We will overcome these abuses, and dozens more like them, by banding together and demanding change. Americans have overthrown injustice over and over again in our history.

We will do it again.

Posted on March 7th, 2012 by Paul Sielski
Filed under: Child Support, children, Elections, Family, Family Court, Legislation | 2 Comments »

The article has been reprinted by the National Coalition For Men (NCFM), a large men’s political advocacy organization. 

 http://ncfm.org/2012/03/news/domestic-abuse-violence/from-its-inception-to-its-essence-vawa-is-the-fraud-of-the-millennia-and-must-be-repealed/

 

What do you do with all this information??? — WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO STOP VAWA!!!   Some folks say it takes them less than a minute per call.  We all lose moral right to complain about “unfairness of the system” unless we make our voices heard, loud and clear !!!

 

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

CALL THE US SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN and tell their staff that You OPPOSE  Sen. Leahy’s VAWA reauthorization bill. THANK U.S. Senator from Iowa, CHUCK GRASSLEY (R) for his opposition to the Sen. Leahy’s draft of VAWA reauthorization.

 

Call up at least the Senators on the list below, who thus far have not co-sponsored VAWA reauthorization proposed by Sen. Leahy.  Say you stand by the “Concerned Women For America” and the “Independent Women’s Forum” who are  against VAWA as it is written by Sen. Leahy.

 

Say you want the funds to go to real victims of DV and of both genders, and for the funds and the DV organizations to be accountable. Tell them that thus far the funds have been mostly used on outrageous anti-male propaganda, on manufacturing of falsified pseudo-scientific statistics of DV, and on personal enrichment of the advocates in the feminist organizations running VAWA. Say that thus far VAWA has been fraud responsible for 30,000 men driven to suicide every year; that VAWA is responsible for more men’s deaths since VAWA’s inception in 1994 than the entire US casualties in WW-2. Tell them that now is the time to put an end to this fraud, and that Sen. Leahy’s bill perpetuates this fraud.

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

Alexander, Lamar – (R – TN) Ayotte, Kelly – (R – NH) Barrasso, John – (R – WY) Blunt, Roy – (R – MO) Boozman, John – (R – AR) Burr, Richard – (R – NC) Chambliss, Saxby – (R – GA) Coats, Daniel – (R – IN) Coburn, Tom – (R – OK) Cochran, Thad – (R – MS) Corker, Bob – (R – TN) Cornyn, John – (R – TX) DeMint, Jim – (R – SC) Enzi, Michael B. – (R – WY) Graham, Lindsey – (R – SC) Grassley, Chuck – (R – IA) Hatch, Orrin G. – (R – UT) Heller, Dean – (R – NV) Hoeven, John – (R – ND) Hutchison, Kay Bailey – (R – TX) Inhofe, James M. – (R – OK) Isakson, Johnny – (R – GA) Johanns, Mike – (R – NE) Johnson, Ron – (R – WI) Kyl, Jon – (R – AZ) Lee, Mike – (R – UT) Lugar, Richard G. – (R – IN) McCain, John – (R – AZ) McConnell, Mitch – (R – KY) Moran, Jerry – (R – KS) Paul, Rand – (R – KY) Portman, Rob – (R – OH) Pryor, Mark L. – (D – AR)   Reid, Harry – (D – NV) Risch, James E. – (R – ID) Roberts, Pat – (R – KS) Rubio, Marco – (R – FL)   Sessions, Jeff – (R – AL) Shelby, Richard C. – (R – AL) Snowe, Olympia J. – (R – ME) Thune, John – (R – SD) Toomey, Patrick J. – (R – PA) Vitter, David – (R – LA) Wicker, Roger F. – (R – MS)

(202) 224-4944 (202) 224-3324 (202) 224-6441 (202) 224-5721 (202) 224-4843 (202) 224-3154 (202) 224-3521 (202) 224-5623 (202) 224-5754 (202) 224-5054 (202) 224-3344 (202) 224-2934 (202) 224-6121 (202) 224-3424 (202) 224-5972 (202) 224-3744 (202) 224-5251 (202) 224-6244 (202) 224-2551 (202) 224-5922 (202) 224-4721 (202) 224-3643 (202) 224-4224 (202) 224-5323 (202) 224-4521   (202) 224-5444 (202) 224-4814 (202) 224-2235 (202) 224-2541   (202) 224-6521 (202) 224-4343 (202) 224-3353 (202) 224-2353 (202) 224-3542 (202) 224-2752 (202) 224-4774 (202) 224-3041   (202) 224-4124 (202) 224-5744 (202) 224-5344 (202) 224-2321 (202) 224-4254 (202) 224-4623 (202) 224-6253

The credit for compiling the list above goes to Howard Goldman, CPA of “New York Families 4 Kids.”

The names mentioned here are targeted by the VAWA proponents who receive VAWA funds. Call them first: Alexander, Ayotte, Cochran, Cornyn, Enzi, Graham, Grassley, Hatch, Heller, Hutchison, Kyl, Lugar, Pryor and Snowe). Ask them not to reauthorize VAWA.

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

If, like me, you’d rather put things in writing, the sites below allow you to write to Congress/Senate on the Internet, or via mail and/or Fax, which is what I did in the second round of contacting them.

————————————————————————-

Sites for Senators/Congressmen’s emails, addresses and fax numbers:

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

U.S. Senate: Senators Home

 

US Congressmen:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

 

 

Harry Crouch

National Coalition For Men

California Men’s Centers

Posted on March 6th, 2012 by Harry
Filed under: All Pro Dads, Child Support, children, Family, Family Court, Legislation | 2 Comments »

Sad story when a good father is shoot and killed in front of his own children by a supremacist killer cop (Orange County Sheriff) that says he deserved to die because he yelled at the cop.  This story like other like it smells, cops cover it up and the news media looks the other way knowing that cops like this get away with murder of a good father and Marine.

Finally, the Marine Corps is speaking out against this abuse since hundreds of Marines have been shot and killed by these supremacist killer cop that feel they are above the law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/marine-commander-displeased-at-comments-about-marine-killed-by-deputy.html

In my opinion, this cop is dirty and kill this Marine under the color of the law and in cold blood just like Chula Vista Police Officer Jeff Hobson that gets away with beating and killing servicemen.  We have given too much power to police and the system has grown too abusive towards the average citizen that we need to take our power back to the people.

Good people are getting beaten and or killed by police while the police do nothing about the crime and the laws they are sworn to uphold.  We have a serious corruption problem in the United States that the main stream media is afraid to tackle and expose that stretches from our police officers all the way to many judges that are sworn to uphold the law.  The system has turned away from good to serving the bad guys and destroying the American family.

Posted on February 18th, 2012 by cpsvictim
Filed under: children, Family, Family Court | 3 Comments »

Utah HB 107: strongest presumptive custody legislation in the US?

Posted by: “donaldtenn@yahoo.com” donaldtenn@yahoo.com donaldtenn

Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:28 pm (PST)

Subject:Utah HB 107: strongest presumptive custody legislation in the US?

Please check out and help support Utah State House Bill 107 – Joint Custody Modifications. Looks like it might make for the strongest presumptive joint custody legislation in the US!

All of the bill documents can be found online at the bill documents page.

Sincerely,
Louis D. Langholtz

PS: Actually there’s a lot of interesting family law bills coming up in Utah legislature now (many of which look good)…

Child Custody \ Parent-Time
Numbered Bills Link Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst
HB0107 Joint Custody Modifications Froerer, G. ECM GRS
HB0308 Parental Rights of Biological Fathers Watkins, C. RF GRS
SB0139 Child Custody Proceedings Robles, L. ECM GRS
Bill Requests Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst Status
Custodial Interference Amendments Froerer, G. ECM In Process
Informed Consent in Domestic Cases Froerer, G. ECM In Process
Kinship Placement Amendments Watkins, C. RF Abandoned
Shared Parenting Amendments Powell, K. ECM In Process

Family
Numbered Bills Link Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst
HB0088 Custody Amendments Wilcox, R. ECM GRS
HB0203 Parental Rights Revisions Watkins, C. RF GRS
HB0225 Child and Family Service Providers Watkins, C. RF SCJ
HB0232 Abuse, Neglect, and Division Definitions Watkins, C. ECM SCJ
SB0139 Child Custody Proceedings Robles, L. ECM GRS
SB0146 Property Rights Amendments Robles, L. ECM GRS
Bill Requests Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst Status
Family Planning Funding Restrictions Wimmer, C. CJD Abandoned

Marriage / Divorce
Numbered Bills Link Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst
HB0236 Alimony Modifications Sandstrom, S. ECM GRS
HB0290 Divorce Orientation Class Nielson, J. ECM GRS
SB0139 Child Custody Proceedings Robles, L. ECM GRS
Bill Requests Short Title Sponsor Attorney Fiscal Analyst Status
Asset Division in Divorce Proceedings Jones, P. ECM Abandoned
Marriage Amendments Dougall, J. ECM In Process
Pre-marital Education and Counseling Amendments Pitcher, D. ECM In Process

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by Semper Fi
Filed under: children, Family, Family Court, Legislation | 11 Comments »

Previously, members of NCFM (primarily myself) have circulated petitions to place judges on the ballot as unopposed candidates in a write-in election.

Apparently, we have unsettled the members of the Judicial Council to the point where they prompted the Legislature to sponsor legislation to do an end run around our desire (and right) to have duly elected judges.

The new law (AB-1335, passed by the legislature in 2010 but then vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenneggar) would increase the number of required signatures from 100 to 0.1% of the eligible voters of a county, bounded by a minimum of 100 signatures and a maximum of 600.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100AB1335&search_keywords=8203

Another attempt was made in the new legislative session (AB-362), this time successfully. The law was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Brown in September 2011.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB362&search_keywords=8203

Besides increasing the number of signatures required in larger counties, for each judicial office petitioned, the new law also requires a candidate to file write-in candidacy papers (Elections Code 8600) wherein someone acknowledges they are running for that judicial seat) and further, in the case of a petition for Superior Court judge, that individual must file an affidavit (Elections Code 13.5) with the Registrar attesting to their qualifications to be sworn in as a judicial officer (Cal. Constitution, Acticle VI, Section 15).

The California Constitution requires that judges be elected! So with this new law, how is this accomplished?

When judicial vacancies occur, the law allows the governor to appoint a temporary judge, but an election is to be held at the next election to fill that judicial seat. And when the next election roles around, no one dares challenge the presently seated and temporarily appointed judge (no doubt due to judicial intimidation) and for some reason, no public election is ever held, not even to affirm the temporarily appointed judge. Who in their right mind would call this an election?

Of course, on those rare occasions when a judge announces his/her intent to vacate a seat at the right time, we do get a real election and lawyers then dare (or dare I say, are ‘welcomed’ by the Judiciary) run for the seat.

As things presently sit, the overwhelming majority of our sitting judges have never seen their name printed on a ballot, and more importantly, citizens never were allowed their Constitutional right to state whether the majority of our ‘empowered’ judges should be there in the first place.

So if the non-legal community of the State of California (everyone except lawyers and judges) wants to see a judge replaced, what recourse do they have? In the case of Appellate and Supreme Court justices, they come up for an affirmation vote every 12 years, so no problem there. But a superior court judge?

There is no operation to place the trial court level up for an affirmation vote every 6 years, and I believe there is no provision for a recall petition such as we have for the appellate and supreme court levels. The general public’s only option is to go to law school (3 years, $200,000+), pass the State Bar (another year or more), and serve ten or more years as an attorney. Does this sound a Constitutional hurdle through which we would want most of us to pass in order to execute our right to vote?

In short, this change in the law has made the office of Superior Court judge a life-long entitlement and not an elected position. Our elections code has been molested and we now longer have the right or ability to elect our trial level judges.

Which leads us to the final question.

Assuming for a minute, that the California Constitution really requires that a judicial officer be elected to office, in the common understanding and interpretation of the word (i.e., their name is placed on a public ballot and they receive a majority of the vote of the public). Are those judges who never faced such an election (and our subsequent combined voice of approval) truly empowered by the State to carry out the will of the people through judgments and sentences? What of the criminal who is incarcerated on Order of a judicial officer who never faced  an election of his/her peers, and therefore, under the Constitution, was sentenced by a ‘judicial officer’ not legally empowered to impose the Will of the State?

Seems to me that if the Rule of law is still in effect in this state, that these people presently incarcerated were never offered a fair trial and by virtue of being incarcerated, are presently having their Rights violated. It could be time to open the prison doors as a result of the Judiciary’s desire to improperly assign certain rights to themselves (actually withhold certain  unalienable rights, the right to vote, from the Public)?

Comments anyone? I want to write an op-ed piece for the Capital Weekly and would appreciate your comments.

Thanks!
John

Posted on January 20th, 2012 by Semper Fi
Filed under: Family Court, Legislation | 2 Comments »