I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Two bills before state legislators would make child custody in Nebraska a 50-50 split

My comments left on site: http://www.nebraska.tv/global/story.asp?S=10171499 @ Jo: MOST (85-90%) couples decide parenting plans themselves. The ones that go to FAMILY COURT overwhelmingly have CONFLICT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE.
______________________________________________________________________ This is patent rubbish but is boilerplate used by misandrist gender feminists and the acolytes working in the DV Industry. Most men have a metaphorical gun put to their head by lawyers saying agree to 14% visitation - its the "Gold Standard" - and cut your losses - the judge is going to give custody to the mom! Those that do go to court are usually brought by loving fathers who end up spending thousands of dollars because a non-co-operative and often vindictive ex doesn't want to share the children with one half of their genetic heritage. The sites referred to cherry pick information and none of the information provided will withstand peer review. In a word they are biased. Putting children in single mother households has led to a great deal of social problems in addition to it being more dangerous in terms of child killing and abuse. Check here. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm
State Child Custody Law: 50-50 Split?

Posted: April 13, 2009 12:06 AM

Updated: April 19, 2009 11:22 PM

Kevin Yoachim of Hebrom spent Easter Sunday dinner with his two kids, both teens. But now, in the midst of divorce, he worries those dinners will be few and far in between.

"A lot of my friends have told me, you're going to have a really hard time getting custody," he said.

Two bills before state legislators would make child custody in Nebraska a 50-50 split, with some restrictions. LB423 would mandate a presumption that both parents are fit for joint legal and physical custody unless evidence proves otherwise.

LB589 states both parents should get equal custody unless there is a medical or legal reason why this should not happen.

The bills went before the Judiciary Committee on March 25th. Attorney Chris Johnson of Hastings testified in support of the bills. Johnson is Yoachim's attorney and said the bills would change how the divorce process begins. Johnson said currently, it's a game of who's the better parent.

"You have to fight, you have to fight, or you're regulated to very little amount of time with probably the most important thing you have in your life," he said.

Johnson said parents won't fight, at least not as much, if the law gives them 50-50 custody, presuming they're equally fit to parent.

"Instead of this immediate inquiry as to who's the better parent, the immediate inquiry is 'why can't we share?"' he said.

"It won't work in all cases, that we know, there's cases where mom and dad hate each other, but where you have two good parents, active parents, it can work," he said.

There's a few catches. The parents would have to live in the same city and the same school district, Johnson said. No problem for Yoachim. He moved out of the house but made sure he was still in the same neighborhood as his ex.

"It does bother me that Courtney spends 70% of her time at her mom's house, when I live two blocks away," he said.

Yet Grand Island attorney Galen Stehlik said expecting estranged partners, even on good terms, to agree to a 50-50 split, isn't reality.

"This seems to imply the law is going to create an even playing field," he said. "A lot of times people get a divorce because they can't agree on issues dealing with their children."

He said the children's interest has always been the state's goal. "It's been a part of our statute since 1974, why keep changing it?"

He said even if the measures pass, the legal system would still have to do its job and figure out what's best for the child.

"You still have to present the evidence, get into court and convince the judge of what is in the best interest of the child. Where would that child be best placed, with mom or dad?"

Both Johnson and Stehlik argue money is a factor, too. Johnson said single parents don't have thousands of dollars to spend on legal fees, and if they can agree on sharing their children at the beginning, they could save money. Stehlik argues parents would spend more money on mediation to find common ground before the court process started.

Johnson argues this system creates harder feelings between the parents, which trickles down to their children.

"It poisons that relationship and hurts the kids for years and years to come," he said. "The fighting goes on forever and ever and doesn't stop when the kids turn 19."

Yoachim said the current system is why he waited until his kids were older, to finally seperate from his wife.

"That was the reason I stayed five years, so I could see the kids grow up," he said.

Reporter's Notes: Stacia Kalinoski LB589's author, Sen. Cap Dierks of Ewing, told me these bills need a lot more support to advance, and it wouldn't be this year. He said the issue has come up before, and the latest bill in 2007 never made it out of committee.

Johnson said the topic will keep coming up. He said the issue is becoming a priority with father's rights groups.

All content © Copyright 2000 - 2009 WorldNow and NTV. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

DADS ON THE AIR ~ MAY 11-12/09



Local Sydney Time: 10.30am to 12 midday Tuesday 12th May 2009 USA Eastern time: 8.30pm to 10pm Monday 11th May 2009 USA Pacific time: 5.30pm to 7pm Monday 11th May 2009 UK GMT time: 12.30am to 2am Monday night (Tuesday morning) 12th May 2009

2GLF FM 89.3 in Sydney and ONLINE via live streaming at http://www.893fm.com.au or in MP3 format at http://www.dadsontheair.net


With Special Guests:

  • John Flanagan

  • George Potkonvak

  • Geoffrey Green

    Phil York

    Democracy has failed the nation's fathers. Issues of concern to dads, including men's health, long and unreasonable work hours, poor pay, family law, child support and a host of other issues are never or rarely ever addressed by our politicians. The electoral success of leftwing governments hostage to feminist lobby groups in America, Australia and the UK has simply made the situation worse. Corrupt and unaccountable systems thrive in secrecy while the nation's politicians look the other way.

In Australia there are serious concerns that even the modest reforms introduced by the previous government aimed at creating at least an element of fairness into family law are about to be wiped away. Extreme male bashing taxpayer funded women's groups are mounting a spirited campaign to return the world to the dark ages when most fathers caught up in family law never or rarely ever saw their children again.

This week Dads On The Air, which began with a group of separated blokes damaged by and brave enough to raise a voice against the overwhelming anti-father bias of Australia's family law system, returns to its roots. We talk with John Flanagan from the Equal Parenting Party, George Potkonyak a solicitor dealing with family law and child support issues, Phil York from Dads In Distress and Geoffrey Greene from the Shared Parenting Council of Australia.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made great play out of his devotion to feminist causes, ignoring the many issues which affect his own gender. He is following the example of his hero Barak Obama, who as made sure feminist causes are a major plank of his government's operations. Many critics believe that as a result of this abject devotion to fashionable ideologies the situation for many fathers is getting worse under both leaders.

Bettina Arndt wrote prophetically two years ago: "IS Kevin Rudd interested in men? The answer, sadly, seems to be no. Unlike John Howard, the Opposition Leader rarely talks about issues affecting many of his own gender, such as family law, child support, fatherless families, boys' education. Indeed, this potential prime minister seems content to hand over the running on most social issues to female colleagues renowned for their anti-male bias. For anyone keen to ensure men and boys receive a fair go, the prospect of a Labor government is all bad news."

In this atmosphere the Labor government is expanding the power of the Family Court and the domestic violence industry while ignoring the social consequences of both.

Astonishingly, Chief Justice of the Family Court Diana Bryant has come out recently saying the court cannot be held responsible for the death of a four year old girl thrown off a bridge by her father, pre-empting the inquest and the court case. This is a man who's entire life was being consumed by the consummate bastardy of the court and the lawyers infesting it; a man who's every waking moment was no doubt preoccupied with how best he could deal with the onerous demands of fighting a custody battle at the same time as being financially ransacked and holding down a job. And he cracked. Yet the court is now desperately trying to wash their hands of the case. Give it a break!

The Chief Justice has also found herself under attack after announcing that she had written to the Attorney General asking that penalties introduced into the Family Law Act be repealed. The Family Court is not known as The Palace of Lies for nothing.

Geoffrey Green, a spokesman for The Shared Parenting Council of Australia, will be discussing their media release on the subject. It read in part:

“Recent media reports that the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has called upon the Attorney-General to give "urgent consideration" to repealing one of the most fundamental protections in the recent Family Law Act amendments is almost without precedent and a recipe for wholesale failure in the integrity and operation of the Family Court System.

"The Chief Justice's call to repeal amendments to the Family Law Act in relation to awarding of costs against the party that maliciously raises untrue allegations of violence or makes untrue denials, will re-open the floodgates to increased perjury, false allegations and flies in the face of findings by two parliamentary enquiries, and natural justice - with an end result diametrically opposed to a child's best interest", Ed Dabrowski, Federal Director of the Shared Parenting Council said today.

"Without any supporting evidence, that there is in fact any harm at all being created by these reasonable and well accepted amendments in the 2006 legislation, the Chief Justice has engaged in a media campaign to undo one of the fundamental protections available to any litigant, anywhere in any other law jurisdiction in the world", Mr Dabrowski said.

"Surely, the Chief Justice couldn't be condoning the re-establishment of a 'penalty free' process for one parent to make false and malicious allegations against the other - this defies every process of law in the Westminster system. If any amendment would be required, it should be to ensure that perjury is punished by criminal sanction, not the repealing of research based amendments made just some three years ago", Mr Dabrowski said.

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia maintains that such a retrograde step would encourage a wholesale rise in mischievous allegations made in Court and to Child Protective Services. It would increase the frequency and severity of false statements including false allegations of abuse and violence against parents and grandparents simply seeking to continue parenting their children after separation and divorce.

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia receives many complaints from parents where the Court's 'cautionary' approach to allegations resulted in impaired or total loss of contact without the allegations ever being proved or even investigated. Mr Dabrowski lamented; "legally unimpeachable parents were being treated like criminals and easily lose their children, without due process, at the discretion of judges."

He said, "Diana Bryant is in effect saying that the most hostile parent ought to have the power to veto the other parent's involvement, no matter what. She is advocating the law change to grant permission for one of the litigants to come in with fabricated or at best flimsy allegations which would veto the child's best interest, to veto shared parenting, a remedy that fosters the best interests of children and is otherwise encouraged by the law.

"The new legislation in 2006 was designed specifically to ensure that children did not lose all contact with one parent and to ensure both parents understood their responsibilities in parenting after separation. Any watering down of the section relating to a "willingness of each child's parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent", will be vigorously opposed.”

Under the Australian Constitution, there are supposed to be three sources of power in Australia – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each one is held to account by checks and balances of the other. However John Flanagan maintains that a fourth power has developed in Australia – the Bureaucracy. This Bureaucracy is elected by no one. In practice, John Flanagan maintains that it is also accountable to no one.

The decisions of the Bureaucracy are based on what they believe are in the “best interests” of Australia and Australians. At the same time, these decisions are not based on consultation with the people who actually live in this country.

For example, these bureaucrats believe that it is in the “best interests” of Australians that the taxpayer should not be responsible for the costs of bringing up children from separated parents. This goal is to be commended. However the solution that has been adopted has had disastrous results.

The bureaucrat’s solution was the implementation of the Child Support Scheme. The approach was simple - forcibly extract money from one parent and give it to the other parent. It does not work. It is directly implicated in the deaths of numerous separated fathers who have been bullied and harassed by heartless CSA bureaucrats into an early grave.

An alternative approach, namely, the adoption of equal-time shared parenting was not on the agenda. This seems to be backed up by recent media comments made by the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant.

Policy decisions are made by bureaucrats within the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). These decisions are then virtually rubber stamped by the Parliament as legislation.

Child support decisions are made by a FaHCSIA group called the “Child Support Policy Unit”. This unit is located on the 6th Floor of Juliana House in Woden. ACT.

The only way we can overcome this problem is for our politicians to significantly reduce the size and influence of the fourth arm of Government – the Bureaucracy.

John Flanagan says that the Question for voters at the next Federal Election will be: “Do we want to have a small group of so-called elite intellectuals control our lives or do we believe that we can plan our lives ourselves?”

George Potkonyak is a solicitor who will discuss some of his concerns with current family law and child support legislation.