• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US justice system does not care about children's safety

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There’s a scene in "Mad Max: Fury Road" where Immortan Joe is deterred from firing his weapon during an adrenaline-packed chase. The fearful antagonist lowers his gun upon discovering that one of his pregnant “wives” is on board the targeted vehicle.

“That’s my property!” Immortan Joe declares -- his rage spewing from behind clenched jaws.

Of course, Immortan Joe is more monster than man and his character is crafted to represent the deepest shadows of aggression and greed. As moviegoers, we see this and rally behind the brave women fleeing his captivity. We recoil from the notion that a man would look upon his child, or his child’s mother, as property.

America’s children are too often treated as property to be divided between contentious parents in family courts.
While dozens of well-respected organizations work tirelessly to improve the legal status of those escaping domestic violence and abuse, the damning fact remains that America’s children are too often treated as property to be divided between contentious parents in family courts. Furthermore, the courageous parents who flee with their children from violence risk losing custody of the children they fought so hard to protect.

Joyanna Silberg Ph.D., executive vice president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, asserts that family courts, in general, are “horrifyingly uninformed” when it comes to how domestic violence and/or child abuse manifests in people's lives. The “signs and prevalence of violence” are rarely understood or appreciated. Tragically, this results in courts routinely ordering children to live with abusive parents.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...amily-courts-fail-children/amp/?client=safari

How does this make you feel? I post this up due to an ongoing suit in my family involving children and a sexually/physical/verbally abusive father who has joint custody of the children.

Long story short he had to be held at gun point after attempting to assault the mother(he came onto the grandfather's land trying to prevent her from outing the abuse), has had testimony thrown out due to incompetence by the school where reports were made, and so on.

The kicker? He is a former cop who has admitted to family about abusing suspects while wearing his badge. The guy needs to go down, but the need for proof is so high that he was able to be awarded 50% custody inspire of the abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...amily-courts-fail-children/amp/?client=safari

How does this make you feel? I post this up due to an ongoing suit in my family involving children and a sexually/physical/verbally abusive father who has joint custody of the children.

Long story short he had to be held at gun point after attempting to assault the mother(he came onto the grandfather's land trying to prevent her from outing the abuse), has had testimony thrown out due to incompetence by the school where reports were made, and so on.

The kicker? He is a former cop who has admitted to family about abusing suspects while wearing his badge. The guy needs to go down, but the need for proof is so high that he was able to be awarded 50% custody inspire of the abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I fathered four daughters in Florida from three different women, the last two daughters from two separate women while still married to the mother of my two oldest daughters. I could become a Poster Father of "Complications due to a Polygamous Lifestyle". I have hands-on experience with Children's Legal Service, Child Protection Services, Guardian ad Litem, Family Court and Child Support Court. The system in theory sings to the tune of "Child's Best Interest". The amalgamated story in your post used to begin this thread speaks decidedly from a single biased perspective. The good news: progress, not perfection... the story helps put the spotlight on a subject I personally deem a high priority. The bad news: the probability of setting in motion an overhaul of an existing system to effect radical improvements, remains, IMO, very low. As I meandered through the system, my personal biggest gripe came from the State, again IMO, not truly seeking the "Child's Best Interest" but instead seeking to saddle me with financial responsibilities without ever enumerating a single legal right or giving me a path to meaningful father-daughter relationships.
 
blackjack50 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...amily-courts-fail-children/amp/?client=safari

How does this make you feel? I post this up due to an ongoing suit in my family involving children and a sexually/physical/verbally abusive father who has joint custody of the children.

Long story short he had to be held at gun point after attempting to assault the mother(he came onto the grandfather's land trying to prevent her from outing the abuse), has had testimony thrown out due to incompetence by the school where reports were made, and so on.

The kicker? He is a former cop who has admitted to family about abusing suspects while wearing his badge. The guy needs to go down, but the need for proof is so high that he was able to be awarded 50% custody inspire of the abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The overall picture is a sanitized overview of stories like your family's. I'm sure it isn't easy, especially when abuse is part of the mix. It is hard to believe that this mom has done everything right and yet is sharing 50-50 custody with someone who has abused their children. My guess is that the problem is NOT with the children but is between the couple themselves with kids caught in the middle.

If this guy has been abusing the children, then the mom needs to get a different lawyer. But if she's lying, or the court suspects she is exaggerating to keep her kids from their dad, she can expect the court, in its frustration, to appoint a guardian ad litem for the kids. That is NOT a desired outcome.

In the meantime, I suggest you stay out of it. Domestic disputes and custody disputes have a way of turning real ugly real fast.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I fathered four daughters in Florida from three different women, the last two daughters from two separate women while still married to the mother of my two oldest daughters. I could become a Poster Father of "Complications due to a Polygamous Lifestyle". I have hands-on experience with Children's Legal Service, Child Protection Services, Guardian ad Litem, Family Court and Child Support Court. The system in theory sings to the tune of "Child's Best Interest". The amalgamated story in your post used to begin this thread speaks decidedly from a single biased perspective. The good news: progress, not perfection... the story helps put the spotlight on a subject I personally deem a high priority. The bad news: the probability of setting in motion an overhaul of an existing system to effect radical improvements, remains, IMO, very low. As I meandered through the system, my personal biggest gripe came from the State, again IMO, not truly seeking the "Child's Best Interest" but instead seeking to saddle me with financial responsibilities without ever enumerating a single legal right or giving me a path to meaningful father-daughter relationships.
Click to expand...

That would be in the instance that no abuse is alleged on you. And I can understand the complications from false allegations. BUT...it should be the priority of the state to seek best interests of the children. And if there is alleged abuse, and guns have been pulled on the father? The father has been reported to DCF, and the children have accused the father? How can he still have legal rights? Oh. Because he claims the children have him confused for the uncle (on the mother's side).

There NEEDS to be reform in the system. It is a joke. I could see the children being placed in the custody of a mutually agreed upon 3rd Party that would allow supervised visits to the children whilst the investigation is on going.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...amily-courts-fail-children/amp/?client=safari

How does this make you feel? I post this up due to an ongoing suit in my family involving children and a sexually/physical/verbally abusive father who has joint custody of the children.

Long story short he had to be held at gun point after attempting to assault the mother(he came onto the grandfather's land trying to prevent her from outing the abuse), has had testimony thrown out due to incompetence by the school where reports were made, and so on.

The kicker? He is a former cop who has admitted to family about abusing suspects while wearing his badge. The guy needs to go down, but the need for proof is so high that he was able to be awarded 50% custody inspire of the abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Proof is important. Requiring it helps to protect you from collusion of three or four people against you.
 
MaggieD said:
The overall picture is a sanitized overview of stories like your family's. I'm sure it isn't easy, especially when abuse is part of the mix. It is hard to believe that this mom has done everything right and yet is sharing 50-50 custody with someone who has abused their children. My guess is that the problem is NOT with the children but is between the couple themselves with kids caught in the middle.

If this guy has been abusing the children, then the mom needs to get a different lawyer. But if she's lying, or the court suspects she is exaggerating to keep her kids from their dad, she can expect the court, in its frustration, to appoint a guardian ad litem for the kids. That is NOT a desired outcome.

In the meantime, I suggest you stay out of it. Domestic disputes and custody disputes have a way of turning real ugly real fast.
Click to expand...

The general mindset is that it is better to have both parents in the picture with their imperfections, than one or both out of it.
 
MaggieD said:
The overall picture is a sanitized overview of stories like your family's. I'm sure it isn't easy, especially when abuse is part of the mix. It is hard to believe that this mom has done everything right and yet is sharing 50-50 custody with someone who has abused their children. My guess is that the problem is NOT with the children but is between the couple themselves with kids caught in the middle.

If this guy has been abusing the children, then the mom needs to get a different lawyer. But if she's lying, or the court suspects she is exaggerating to keep her kids from their dad, she can expect the court, in its frustration, to appoint a guardian ad litem for the kids. That is NOT a desired outcome.

In the meantime, I suggest you stay out of it. Domestic disputes and custody disputes have a way of turning real ugly real fast.
Click to expand...

I absolutely am staying out of it. I wouldn't want to be involved. The man is toxic and has attacked (with accusations) any member of the family she has gotten closed too. There is also a complication due to some victims rights advocate group getting involved that has caused problems with the judge.

I know this though...if someone harmed. Children of mine? A courtroom would not be something they would see. I know the grandfather wishes he would have killed the guy now. The thing that still baffles me though is that the court is so obtuse on the issue of the children.

The children have claimed on multiple occasions that he has abused them. But it is irrelevant due to some technicalities. It also doesn't help that both parties are the children of VERY wealthy parents, and both sides have VERY expensive lawyers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
backpacker said:
The general mindset is that it is better to have both parents in the picture with their imperfections, than one or both out of it.
Click to expand...

There was a time in America when the state would remove children from a home when there was verifiable evidence of abuse or neglect. And that was defined as excessive physical abuse or failure to provide the child with basic necessities--food, water, shelter, clothing. If you could not or would not take care of your kids or excessively abused them, you didn't get to keep your kids. And if you lost your kids, you had to DEMONSTRATE that you had cleaned up your act and were prepared to parent responsibly before you got them back.

As a result, people didn't send their kids to school hungry or without shoes or a coat expecting others to provide them with what they needed. Every kid had a dime or quarter for the school lunch or carried at least a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a sack lunch. To not feed your kids was so socially unacceptable that it was very very very rare.

Leaving the child in a home that does not provide any love or basic necessities is not in the best interest of a child even though all children benefit from a good home with a loving dad and mom in it.

At the same time, there must be some evidence other than one vindictive parent's word for it before the state should not allow the other parent to parent the child. These things are always terrible for the child and are always complicated, but things are not always as they seem.
 
blackjack50 said:
That would be in the instance that no abuse is alleged on you. And I can understand the complications from false allegations. BUT...it should be the priority of the state to seek best interests of the children. And if there is alleged abuse, and guns have been pulled on the father? The father has been reported to DCF, and the children have accused the father? How can he still have legal rights? Oh. Because he claims the children have him confused for the uncle (on the mother's side).

There NEEDS to be reform in the system. It is a joke. I could see the children being placed in the custody of a mutually agreed upon 3rd Party that would allow supervised visits to the children whilst the investigation is on going.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I experienced a vast amount of complications ... stigma, financial cost (for lawyers, a psychiatrist, counselling, anger management classes and assorted other expenses), many time consuming inconveniences of mandatory hearing dates and countless hours of deliberations ... due to fending off false allegations of abuse. Judges make the decisions in Family Court... with a dubious, at best. standard of proof. I appealed one of those decisions ... and it cost me thousands of more dollars only to lose. I never feared criminal charges. A criminal conviction requires a much higher standard of proof and entitles a defendant the option of Trial By Jury. Going rogue and losing one's cool in the courtroom usually means intervention by multiple bailiffs and a contempt of court charge... I have had to concern myself with that a few times and usually take reasonable precautions in advance... like hiring a court reporter for a transcript and giving her instructions on what to do if the judge holds me in contempt. Going rogue outside the courtroom ... good luck with that... I can recite my Rebel's Rap sometime in another thread. When you know for a fact abuse has taken place... and the Family Court judge does not believe you or does not rule in your favor, then I would say the perp successfully gamed the system under the guise of "plausible deniability". Want a "pick me up" story? I suggest you Google "Jarrett Adams" ... a story about a black kid who turned his bad luck into Gold. Let's keep praying for all children.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There was a time in America when the state would remove children from a home when there was verifiable evidence of abuse or neglect. And that was defined as excessive physical abuse or failure to provide the child with basic necessities--food, water, shelter, clothing. If you could not or would not take care of your kids or excessively abused them, you didn't get to keep your kids. And if you lost your kids, you had to DEMONSTRATE that you had cleaned up your act and were prepared to parent responsibly before you got them back.

As a result, people didn't send their kids to school hungry or without shoes or a coat expecting others to provide them with what they needed. Every kid had a dime or quarter for the school lunch or carried at least a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a sack lunch. To not feed your kids was so socially unacceptable that it was very very very rare.

Leaving the child in a home that does not provide any love or basic necessities is not in the best interest of a child even though all children benefit from a good home with a loving dad and mom in it.

At the same time, there must be some evidence other than one vindictive parent's word for it before the state should not allow the other parent to parent the child. These things are always terrible for the child and are always complicated, but things are not always as they seem.
Click to expand...

And standards have changed over time. Would have and could haves don't really get to the issue--that stuff is very expensive and time consuming, and the courts will still let a child visit their crack addict mom as long as the mom isn't smoking crack with the child. The 'best interest" of the child is often seen as the best interest of child support enforcement. Terminating those parental rights terminates those support orders, at least in some places.
 
backpacker said:
And standards have changed over time. Would have and could haves don't really get to the issue--that stuff is very expensive and time consuming, and the courts will still let a child visit their crack addict mom as long as the mom isn't smoking crack with the child. The 'best interest" of the child is often seen as the best interest of child support enforcement. Terminating those parental rights terminates those support orders, at least in some places.
Click to expand...

The truth is that we have a chunk of a whole generation or two out there who have never been culturally conditioned to take responsibility for themselves or accept the consequences for the choices they make. The entitlement mentality has produced massive amounts of people without significant motivation--I don't have to do it because the government will do it for me if I don't. I don't have to study because they'll pass me anyway. I don't need to stay in school--if I need one, a G.E.D. is easy to get. I don't have to get married to have kids because the government takes care of poor single mothers. I don't have to feed my kids because the school will do that for me--breakfast, lunch, and in many cases dinner.

The epidemic of alcoholism and drug abuse and addiction is a huge factor in all of that as well as being a huge factor in much or most of the criminal activity and man's inhumanity to man. Liberalism and a breakdown in traditional conservative values has not been a good thing for American society.
 
blackjack50 said:
That would be in the instance that no abuse is alleged on you. And I can understand the complications from false allegations. BUT...it should be the priority of the state to seek best interests of the children. And if there is alleged abuse, and guns have been pulled on the father? The father has been reported to DCF, and the children have accused the father? How can he still have legal rights? Oh. Because he claims the children have him confused for the uncle (on the mother's side).

There NEEDS to be reform in the system. It is a joke. I could see the children being placed in the custody of a mutually agreed upon 3rd Party that would allow supervised visits to the children whilst the investigation is on going.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do not dismiss your feelings at all. I would like to point out that people lie and have issues. I deal with this in my own situation. My ex lies about me to cops and in the Court. Facts show she is the abuser but due to circumstances she was awarded just over 50% custody. Some of her family has nothing to do with her but some believe everything she says about me and she cons people that dont know her well. They think i am the devil just as you do about this guy. He may be. I am very calm about her bull**** but many guys aren't. A gun pulled on this guy could be for any number of false allegations that he lost his temper over. He could be getting ****ed for valid reasons or it could very well be bull**** from her. anyway... hope it works out.
 
blackjack50 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.phil...amily-courts-fail-children/amp/?client=safari

How does this make you feel? I post this up due to an ongoing suit in my family involving children and a sexually/physical/verbally abusive father who has joint custody of the children.

Long story short he had to be held at gun point after attempting to assault the mother(he came onto the grandfather's land trying to prevent her from outing the abuse), has had testimony thrown out due to incompetence by the school where reports were made, and so on.

The kicker? He is a former cop who has admitted to family about abusing suspects while wearing his badge. The guy needs to go down, but the need for proof is so high that he was able to be awarded 50% custody inspire of the abuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Government does not care about people at all, it only cares about usurping power and gaining control over people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom