Law must be scrubbed clean of normal parents

Lesbian marriage is all about cutting off fathers from their kids. Consider this case:

Despite the advance of same-sex marriage in the US, it may be some time before the law is scrubbed clean of the presumption that a male/female relationship constitutes a family.

A legally-married lesbian couple in New Jersey, Sheena and Tiara Yates, are fighting requests for visitation rights from their two children’s biological fathers.

Most states have court precedents saying that parents have a constitutional right to their kids. Even the US Supreme Court said some similar things about 80 years ago.

All of that must be scrubbed clean now, to please the lesbians.

Britain is finding that it must take alleged lesbians from Africa:

The Home Office has been accused of having ‘outdated’ views on sexuality, after it rejected an asylum claim made by a Nigerian lesbian.

Aderonke Apata, 47, came to Britain in 2004 and is an award-winning LGBT rights activist.

Now, she is challenging the Government’s decision not to grant her asylum in Britain and fears that deportation to Africa would compromise her safety.

Yesterday, she appeared in London’s High Court to appeal her case.

She was accompanied by her fiancée Happiness Agboro and a group of gay-rights activists. Apata has even submitted footage and photographic evidence of her sex life to prove that she is homosexual. ...

However, the Home Office has refused to recognise her sexuality – arguing she can’t be classified as a lesbian because she has children from a previous heterosexual relationship.

Barrister Andrew Bird, on behalf of the Home Secretary, claimed that Apata wasn’t “part of the social group known as lesbians,” although he conceded that she had “indulged in same-sex activity.”

“You can’t be a heterosexual one day and a lesbian the next day. Just as you can’t change your race,” he added during the hearing.

Apata’s barrister, Abid Mahmood, called these views: “highly offensive”.

Highly offensive? I thought that the gays and lesbians get offended when you say the opposite. They are forced us all to switch from the term "sexual preference" to "sexual orientation", just to emphasize that it is unchangeable. California has even passed a law against changing sexual orientation.

Until recently, gay asylum seekers were liable to be asked ‘intrusive’ and personal questions about their sex lives, in order to establish the validity of claims about their sexuality.

So they don't ask those questions anymore?

If she does not care to publicly discuss her sexual practices, she could stay in the closet and no one would bother her.

These people want asylum for being LGBT activists, but they do not want to say what it is that they really do.

In the USA, when the feds suspect a marriage for the purpose of immigration fraud, they ask intrusive personal questions. I thought they did, anyway. I guess that now when a woman gets off the boat from Africa and demands asylum and citizenship by virtue of being a lesbian, it is rude to ask whether she really has sexual relations with another woman? And rude to ask how she got those kids (who are probably also getting asylum) if she is not oriented towards male-female sexual relations?

This is a funny thing about gay rights. The activists want to be in your face about being gays and lesbians, but in the closet about what they do. For example, the recent Alan Turing movie made a big deal about him being gay, but never gave any clue about any actual homosexual relationship.

I can buy into libertarian views on LGBTQIA behavior, but we are going way beyond that.

Ordered to speak English to kid

UCLA law professor E. Volokh reports:

Fortunately, a Florida appellate court reversed this order on Friday, in Perez v. Fay (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2015). The mother had lost custody, and allowed only supervised visitation, because of her bipolar disorder (and possibly also because of “two criminal offenses in 2010,” though the court doesn’t offer many details on that). But the trial court also required that the mother’s supervised visitation be only in English:

The court [at first] ordered that the Mother could have daily telephone contact with her daughter at a time to be coordinated with and supervised by the Father. And, because the Father did not speak the Mother’s native language — Spanish — the court ordered the Mother to speak only English with her daughter during these daily telephone calls….

Volokh is a big free speech advocate, and he has written against restrictions like this.

I am all in favor of free speech, but this is a silly ruling. The USA is an English-speaking country. Having to speak English is minor compared to all the other court restrictions.

I wonder if the professor understands what "supervised visitation" means. In my experience, it means paying some dopey babysitter $50 per hour to censor what I say to my kids. I once had one tell me that I could not talk math to my kids because a CPS agent once complained that I took them to a math contest. Others had other issues, and would interrupt us for silly reasons.

The whole concept of supervised visitation is offensive to anyone who believes in parental rights and free speech.

The Mother is a native of Venezuela. She speaks English fluently, but Spanish is her native tongue. The Father knew these facts about the Mother when he married and had a child with her. The Father cannot be surprised or complain that the Mother may — from time to time — choose to speak with her daughter in Spanish. Most parents would be pleased to have their child acquire a second language. This should be particularly true for the Spanish language in Florida, where approximately twenty per cent of the population speaks Spanish. ...

In addition, the Florida Constitution guarantees its citizens the right of privacy. In this regard, Article I, section 23 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.” Undoubtedly, the sphere of private life in which one must be let alone, free from governmental intrusion, includes the right to speak with one’s child in the language of one’s choosing and not to have that choice dictated by the agents of the state. See Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349, 352 (Fla.2008) (“Parental authority over decisions involving their minor children derives from the liberty interest contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the guarantee of privacy in article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution.”).

I am always glad to see some affirmation of parental rights, but this is ridiculous. The mom's parenting has been reduced to phone calls. Whatever constitutional authority she had over their kids has already been taken away. I do not know what justifications that might have had. If she is really some terrible criminal who should not see her kids, then she should have no right to inflict Spanish on them. And no, we do not need more Spanish speakers in Florida. If she is not such a terrible criminal, then zeroing out her custodial rights is the real offense here. Letting her speak Spanish on the phone and nothing else just seems like trouble-making to me.

The trouble with grandparent visitation

The US Supreme Court made a mess of grandparent visitation law in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and the states have been sharply divided on the issue ever since. The latest mess is a N. Dakota case:

GRAND FORKS – A couple here who were sued by the man’s parents for visitation with the grandchildren is appealing the case to the state Supreme Court.

That’s after a judge confirmed his ruling that Cory Bjerke and his longtime partner, Naomi Sterf, must allow their 16-year-old to visit her grandparents any time she wishes, and also must allow the couple’s other two younger children to see Bjerke’s parents.

State law says grandparents may be given visitation, as long as it’s in the children’s best interests and doesn’t interfere with the parent-child relationship.

Bjerke and Sterf argue the 16-year-old’s unfettered visitation rights laid out in the order by Grand Forks County District Court Judge Lawrence Jahnke do interfere with their parent-child relationship.

These visitation laws foolishly undermine parental authority, as can be seen in this case.

It is especially infuriating when the judge orders an outrageous and unconstitutional visitation schedule, and then disavows any responsibility for it:

The judge wrote that he hoped the bad feeling between the two sets of adults could be set aside, especially as holidays approached.

“It’s time for the Respondents and Petitioners, for the sake of their children and grandchildren, to once again attempt to re-establish a civil dialogue with one another. They can’t expect the court to repair their fractured relationship,” Jahnke wrote. “Only they themselves can do it.”

Judge Jahnke fractured that relationship by ordering the parents to let their kids run off to the grandparents whenever they please. The parental responsibilities are with the parents, not the grandparents, and the parents need the authority to use their own judgment without the micro-management by an a-hole judge like Judge Jahnke.

Tennessee court uses BIOTCh for grandparents

A Tennessee newspaper reports:

Grandparents in Tennessee will be able to see their grandchildren more easily because of a ruling Friday by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The unanimous ruling clarified the standard that grandparents must meet when they want to modify details of court-approved visits with grandchildren. The ruling especially affects cases in which grandparents seek to maintain relationships after parents divorce or adopt.

Grandparents will have to show that altering a visitation plan would be in the child’s “best interest” — a lower standard than they had to meet in the past. Previously, grandparents had to prove that a “substantial risk” of harm would result if the changes were not made.

The BIOTCh (“best interest”) is no standard at all. It just means letting the judge apply his personal prejudices.

After I temporarily lost custody of my kids, my mom asked the court for visitation. After all, she reasoned, no one had shown that she did anything wrong, and it wasn't fair that she was being cut out of the lives of her grandkids.

From my point of view, no one had shown that I did anything wrong either. No witness or judge ever said that I was an unfit parent. Every decision against me was grounded in the BIOTCh theory that the judge can change custody without any proof of wrongdoing, and can be just an opinion about what is best.

The judge left it in the discretion of Julie Travers, and she swore that she would never permit my mom to see the kids ever again.

Attorneys said Tennessee law gives parents superior rights to grandparents but allows grandparents to seek visitation through the courts. But the law doesn’t say much about situations in which grandparents want to adjust visitation, leading three appeals court judges to write differing opinions.

The Supreme Court justices, addressed the families involved, saying they did not condone the uncooperative relationship that had formed between the parents and grandparents, and urged both families to “refocus on how best to foster the welfare of the child.”

I wonder if the judges even realize how self-defeating their opinions are. They make it impossible for the parents and grandparents to do what the court is urging them to do.

Economist Ronald Coase just died,

Ronald H. Coase, whose insights about why companies work and when government regulation is unnecessary earned him a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 1991, died on Monday in Chicago. He was 102.

His death was announced by the University of Chicago.

By his own description, Professor Coase (rhymes with doze) was an “accidental” economist who spent most of his career teaching at the University of Chicago Law School and not its economics department. Yet he is best known for two papers that are counted among the most influential in the modern history of the science. ...

In the second of his groundbreaking papers, “The Problem of Social Cost,” published in 1960, Professor Coase challenged the idea that the only way to restrain people and companies from behaving in ways that harmed others was through government intervention. He argued that if there were no transaction costs, the affected parties could negotiate and settle conflicts privately to their mutual benefit, and that fostering such settlements might make more economic sense than pre-empting them with regulations.

The paper made the idea of property rights fundamental to understanding the role of regulation in the economy. ...

While teaching at Virginia, Professor Coase submitted his essay about the F.C.C. to The Journal of Law and Economics, a new periodical at the University of Chicago. The astonished faculty there wondered, according to one of their number, George J. Stigler, “how so fine an economist could make such an obvious mistake.” They invited Professor Coase to dine at the home of Aaron Director, the founder of the journal, and explain his views to a group that included Milton Friedman and several other Nobel laureates-to-be.

“In the course of two hours of argument, the vote went from 20 against and one for Coase, to 21 for Coase,” Professor Stigler later wrote. “What an exhilarating event! I lamented afterward that we had not had the clairvoyance to tape it.” Professor Coase was asked to expand on the ideas in that essay for the journal. The result was “The Problem of Social Cost.”

At the heart of Coase's paper is the simple observation that conflicted parties can negotiate agreements to their mutual benefit if their rights under the law are defined in advance.

It is too bad that we don't have a tape of those 20 distinguished professors denouncing Coase. The Coase theorem is considered so obvious today, that it would be illuminating to see what their misconception was.

These judges have made it impossible for the parents and grandparents to negotiate and agreement, because their rights are not defined.

Whatever the misconception, the Tennessee court seems to suffer from a similar one. Their decision says that any agreement can be reversed by some foolish family judge's opinion of the BIOTCh. So no rights are defined, and no agreements are enforceable. Everyone is always at the mercy of a judge.

Just look at the perverse incentives. If a Tennessee parent lets the grandparents visit once a week, then the parent runs the risk of some judge ordering that arrangement permanent. If the grandparents are known to be litigious, then the Tennessee parents would be better off not letting the grandparents visit at all.

The Tennessee decision says:

Our decision to grant this relief should in no way be understood as condoning the acrimonious and uncooperative relationship that has existed between the Copleys and the Lovlaces or suggesting that their future willful failure to abide by the visitation arrangement in the January 5, 2011 order will not result in serious consequences. Their hostility towards each other and unwillingness to work together has resulted in each side incurring thousands of dollars of attorney’s fees, in addition to the emotional turmoil this litigation ha s undoubtedly produced. Unfortunately, the record on appeal suggests that the Copleys and the Lovlaces have lost sight of the fact that the paramount consideration in this case, as well as all other legal proceedings involving child custody and visitation, is the welf are of the child. Luke v. Luke, 651 S.W.2d 219, 221(Tenn.1983). The interests and desires of adult parties are secondary to this par amount concern. Boyer, 238 S.W.3d at 255; Dantzler v. Dantzler, 665 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). We urge the Copleys and the Lovlaces to refocus on how best to foster the welfare of the child they all dearly love and allow this goal to guide their future interactions with each other.

It is disgusting to blame the parties for bringing their case to court, when the central holding of the decision is that no out-of-court agreement is enforceable.

These judges are completely ignorant of law and economics:

Modern law and economics dates from about 1960, when Ronald Coase (who later received a Nobel Prize) published “The Problem of Social Cost.”

How does anyone get to the state supreme court without understanding freshman-leval legal knowledge? I realize that appointments are political, but surely there are some lawyers in Tennessee that understand this. They can't all be Appalachian hillbillies.

Someone had to pay for missing Fathers Day

The Chicago Tribune reports:

A man shot and wounded another man in a drive-by on the West Side because "someone had to pay" after he was not allowed to see his child on Father's Day, police said.

Xavier Guzman, 25, whose nickname is "Lil Bin Laden," has been charged with aggravated battery with a handgun and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.

Guzman, of the 900 block of North Kedvale Avenue, is accused of shooting a 21-year-old man in the 2700 block of West 16th Street in the Douglas Park neighborhood early Monday, police said.

After his arrest, Guzman told officers he had an argument with the child's mother after she refused to let him to see the child, according to a police report. He told police he became "enraged" and "wanted to take it out on someone," the report said. ...

The victim, from the Douglas Park neighborhood, was standing on a sidewalk when the SUV stopped and the driver said to him: "What's up b----?" while pointing the gun at him and a friend, according to a police report.

Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. He would be breaking the law by just having the gun, even if he were not a convicted felon. Chicago also has 500 murders a year.

I am not defending this guy. He belongs in jail. But he still should have been able to see his child.

Illinois passes right of first refusal

Illinois Fathers reports:

In an historic move, Illinois unanimously passed the ‘Right of First Refusal’ on May 22 (HB2992, 98th Session).

Illinois becomes the first state to explicitly call for consideration of the ‘Right of First Refusal’ in a parenting plan or court order.

It will be added as Section 602.3 to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The bill is currently on the governor’s desk for his expected signature.

‘Right of First Refusal’ is a guarantee that anytime a parent needs someone to watch the children, they must ask the other parent first. This gives a parent the opportunity to watch the children when the other parent has them.

Sounds great, right?

The court is given the maximum discretion in determining if ‘Right of First Refusal’ is in the child’s best interest.

I guess this is progress, but it is not much of a right if some stupid judge has the discretion to take it away based on his own prejudices.

Nazi dad lost his kids

I mentioned this case in 2010, and suggested that you do not name your kid Adolf. This man is testing the limits of free speech. UPI reports:

The founder of New Jersey pro-Nazi organization "Hitler’s Order" appeared in family court wearing a Nazi uniform to petition for the right to visit his youngest son.

The family made headlines in 2008 when a supermarket refused to write Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on a cake for his third birthday. The Campbells complained that it was discrimination and another store provided a cake, but the news led New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (NJ DYFS) to investigate.

NJ DYFS officials placed Adolf Hitler Campbell, 7, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, 6, and 5-year-old Honzlynn Jeannie Campbell in foster care due to alleged violence in the home. Hons Campbell was born later, in 2011, and NJ DYFS took the boy from Heath Campbell and his now estranged wife Deborah Campbell when he was just 16 hours old.

The couple argues that they have never abused their children, and that they are being discriminated against for giving their children Nazi-inspired names.

Heath Campbell, 40, hasn't seen his children in two years, and the three oldest have been adopted by another family. The children's mother has already given up her parental rights.

Prior to the closed-door custody hearing on Monday, Campbell told WCAU-TV that the Nazi uniform shouldn't affect the court's decision. "I'm going to tell the judge, I love my children; I wanna be a father, let me be it. Let me prove to the world that I am a good father."

This is wacky, but I don't see how it is any worse than the dad being a Commie or a Mohammedan. He is entitled to his beliefs. He should not have lost his kids for his beliefs.

I attacked JC Penney for its Apple anti-consumer attitude and its gay Fathers Day marketing, but now it just got caught promoting a Hitler tea kettle on a billboard. Penney had to pull the product and the billboard. Perhaps someone at Penney thought that it was a joke. You cannot joke about one of the great evil men of the 20th century, I guess.

Untimely FOAH submitted

My ex-wife just send me proposed "Findings and Order After Hearing" for a couple court hearings over a year ago. The first said:

Proceeding on August 10, 2011 at 10:30 Dept. C
IT IS ORDERED:

CUSTODY:
The court shall grant temporary sole legal and physical custody of minors [Mary AngryDad] and [Jenny AngryDad] to Juiie Travers, Petitioner. There shall be no modification to the custody order for two (2) years.

VISITATION:
The parties are provided with the Court Supervised Visitation Provider list. Mother has selected four (4) supervisors from the list, Father shall call one of them and begin supervised visits with the minor children. Mother shall provide the girls schedule to Father; Supervised visitation shall be at Mother's discretion and at the minor's request. Father shall contact the professionally supervisor and set up the supervised visits. Father shall provide Mother all his available dates for supervised visits.

CONTEMPT:
Father withdraws his time waiver at this time and his last date for trial is September 26, 2011. All briefs and responses are due by September 2, 2011. Father is advised he can obtain counsel for the contempt proceedings.

The contempt charge was for posting info about the case on this blog. I had to remove several (accurate) quotes as a result of the contempt hearing. I think that it was a denial of my free speech rights, as I was only reporting on court evidence used against me.

The second said:

Proceeding on January 4,2012 at 1:30 Dept. C

FINDINGS AND ORDERS:

The Court finds that there is no change of circumstance and that the prior order of 8/10/11 states that there shall be no modification to the custody and visitation orders of 8/10/11 for a period of 2 years.

Petitioner, Julie Jae Travers, shall continue to have sole legal and physical custody of the minors, [Mary AngryDad] and [Jenny AngryDad]. Respondent, George AngryDad, is to have supervised visitation at the discretion of the Petitioner.

The Respondent shall continue with supervised visitation and contact the other 2 remaining professional supervisors on the list or 2 more approved by Petitioner about resuming supervised visitation with the minors.

The Court notes that Dr. Perlmutter has declined to do a brief update on the status due to negative statements made by Respondent on his blog and C.J. Neustadter has declined to continue with the supervised visitation due to Respondent's failure to comply with the rules and regulations pertaining to the supervision.

Respondent's request for modification of custody and visitation is denied.

Not exactly. Perlmutter was unhappy that I reported his ethics violations. Neustadter did not accuse me of refusing to comply with any rules.

The problem with Neustadter is that she kept putting false and derogatory allegations in her reports. For example, we went to a climbing gym for one supervised visit, and my kids had a lesson scheduled. While they were waiting for the lesson to start, I told them to climb on the "boulder" that was provided for the purpose. Neustadter wrote in her report that I was violating the gym rules to tell them to climb on the boulder. There was no such rule. She could have just asked anyone at the gym, and they would have told her that the boulder was for such climbing. A sign on the boulder even said so. However I asked Neustadter to correct her report, and she refused.

Neustadter was also horrible with kids. I did not like her around my kids because of her negative attitude. And I did not like her over-opinionated reports. She told me that she like to put at least one negative thing in each report, because that makes her sound more credible. I tolerated her for a while, but when she refused to correct objectively false statements, she became intolerable.

I mention this at yet another false Neustadter allegation is going on the court record, and she will not do anything about it. I have tried to avoid criticizing her, but she leaves me no choice.

I don't know why my ex-wife is submitting this paperwork at this time.

The cover letter said:

April 30, 2013
RE: AngryMom v. AngryDad
FOAH for January 4,2012 hearing ...

Enclosed, please find the Findings and Order After Hearing in the above-entitled matter. Please sign where indicated and return in the envelope enclosed for your convenience.

If we do not receive a response from you within five days of the date of this letter per California Rules of Court Rule 391(a), the proposed order will be submitted to the court for the Judge's signature.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Julie Travers

My 5 days were already up when I got the letter. There was no enclosed envelope.

Kentucky weakens grandparents' rights

The Louisville newspaper reports:

The Kentucky Supreme Court has made it harder for grandparents to win visitation with their grandchildren when the child’s parents object.

In a 6-1 ruling, the state’s high court ruled Thursday that parents who oppose giving a grandparent visitation must be presumed to be acting in the child’s best interests.

The court did not strike down Ken­tuc­ky’s 1984 grandparent visitation law but said a grandparent must present “clear and convincing” evidence to win the right to visit a grandchild over a parent’s objection.

“Kentucky courts cannot presume that grandparents and grandchildren will always benefit from contact with each other,” the court ruled. “If the only proof that a grandparent can present is that they spent time with the child and attended holidays and special occasions, this alone cannot overcome the presumption that the parent is acting in the child’s best interest.” ...

“That is an awful high legal standard,” said former Jefferson Family Court Judge Louis Waterman, adding that it gives “near-total authority” to parents. ...

The court said grandparents may win court-ordered visitation if they can show that the child would be harmed by denying it or where the grandparent and child lived in the same household for some time or the grandparent regularly baby sat the child.

The court directed judges to consider eight factors, including the nature and stability of the relationship between the child and the grandparent; the amount of time they had spent together; the effect that granting visitation would have on the child’s relationship with the parents; and the wishes and preferences of the child.

Of course the parents should have near-total authority. The alternative is to give some stupid family court judge near-total authority.

I have readers who are grandparents, and they want to see their grandkids. But should the judge really be overruling the parents and saying who the kids can and cannot visit? I say no.

Even with this decision, if parents ask the grandparents to babysit the kids, then they are running the risk that some judge will order visitation in the future. If the parents want to play it safe, then they should put their kids in daycare instead letting the grandparents babysit, if there is any risk that the grandparents will turn litigious.

Of course I am a parent, and these Kentucky grandparents still have more rights to see their grandkids than I have to see my own kids. I was not just a babysitter either.

Lockyer in drug trouble again

The LA Times reports:

Nadia Lockyer, the former Bay Area supervisor and estranged wife of California's state treasurer, will be allowed to visit her 9-year-old following her drug arrest in Orange County last month.

An Orange County Superior Court judge granted Lockyer visitation rights following a brief court hearing Monday.

Lockyer, a former Alameda County supervisor, was arrested by Orange police on Aug. 28 after a tipster told authorities that the 41-year-old woman was in possession of drugs, prosecutors said.

At the time, Lockyer was living with her son at a relative’s home in Orange. When police arrived, they found drug paraphernalia and observed that Lockyer appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, prosecutors said.

On Monday, a judge granted a modified protective order allowing Lockyer to call her son and also to visit with him as long as the boy’s father is present, said deputy district attorney Andrew Katz.

Bill Lockyer is the Democrat California state Treasurer, and former state attorney general. I posted on them back in Feb. and March, when Mrs. Lockyer ran off with a meth addict, made sex tapes with him, and then accused him of beating her up.

Nadia Lockyer is also a Democrat, lawyer, and feminist. She accused her husband of setting her up on the drug charges, but withdrew the accusation.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:

Bill Lockyer filed for divorce in July, citing "irreconcilable differences" and seeking joint physical and legal custody of their son. His spokesman, Tom Dresslar, last week said that "Bill hopes Nadia has a successful recovery, and he also wants to make clear that Diego is living with him in the Bay Area and he's safe and sound."

Dresslar said Monday that Bill Lockyer agrees with the court's decision allowing his estranged wife to talk to and see their son.

He seems quite tolerant of the woman who betrayed him over and over again.

I not posting this just because it is a scandal. These are politicians who helped bring us the screwed up anti-family policies California has. Here is a 2010 story:

Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 2 candidate Nadia Lockyer today announced she has the endorsement of Deborah Roderick Stark, whom she described as “a nationally recognized expert in child and family policy” and a First Five Alameda County Commission member.

“As a mother, former adult caregiver, and someone who deals with families everyday as the Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, Nadia understands the needs of families and what it takes to keep communities healthy. Nadia Lockyer will be a voice for the children and families of Alameda County when she will serve on the Board of Supervisors, representing the people of District 2,” Stark said in the news release.

The news release delves deeper into both women’s professional bona fides, but doesn’t mention that Lockyer, 38, is the wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, 68, or that Stark, 43, is the wife of Rep. Pete Stark, 78.

So Mrs. Lockyer was running a "Family Justice Center" where she helped women make phony domestic violence accusations in order to win child custody. These people are evil.

More on the JCP ad

I criticized a JC Penney ad yesterday, and I had commenters calling me uneducated, abhorrent, and various other names.

Many comments seemed to miss the point. One said:

I'm extremely curious as to why you think this as devalues fatherhood. You really didn't explain that issue very well.

A theme of this blog is that the family court devalues fathers to be just support money payers, and maybe be awarded visitation privileges, contingent on good behavior. Throughout history, fathers have been much more than that. The father has been the head of household, with the responsibility to lead, support, teach, discipline, build character, etc.

But the typical dad in family court getw two weekends a month visitation, and no real opportunity to direct the upbringing of his child. He is a visitor. Maybe he is a swim coach or bicycle fixer or a friend, and that is all. This is wrong. Kids need moms and dads, and get something different from each.

Now a JC Penney Fathers Day ad says a father can be like a coach or a friend, and one of my gay commenters says that it is inspiring because he wants to have a biological child someday. If that ever happens, I hope that he is inspired to be more than a coach or a friend. Kids need more than that.

While courts are denying the rights and responsibilities of fathers, they are also aggressively pushing doctrines that are contrary to kids having a mom and a dad. Here are two examples from the last week.

The federal appeals court ruled that Calif. Prop. 8 is unconstitutional because California voters had no rational purpose in voting for it, so California same-sex couples and only California same-sex couples are entitled to marriage licenses. The decision is not about any rights that gays have or don't have, except that the idea is to force others to respect their relationships.

The New Mexico supreme court ruled that a Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies. It sure seems to me that a private photographer should be able to photograph anyone she wants. There are plenty of other wedding photographers.

If gays were arguing for freedom to do what they want, then I would have no argument. But these cases are all about gays forcing others to respect their lifestyles. I believe that we have rights to form our own opinions. Some commenters have ad hominem attacks at anyone who disagrees.

Getting back to the JCP ad, it seems to portray an ideal father as a gay man who gets in a relationship with another gay man, adopts a couple of overseas babies, and aspires to be swim coach and friend to the kids.

One reader comments:

I can literally name 7 gay couples that I know personally who have adopted/are trying to adopt or who are using a surrogate/have used one. These are wealthy, upstanding citizens and wonderful parents who deserve all the same recognition and respect as any heterosexual father.

There are also lesbian couples who have used artificial insemination from sperm donors or who have sued their ex-husbands for sole custody of their kids. Maybe some of them will be featured in the next JCP ad.

Another says:

That's part of why many adoption agencies (such as the Independent Adoption Center, which caters to the LGBT community) choose to do open adoptions,

I am glad someone respects the importance of biological parents. Some commenters seemed to deny that there was any difference between biological and adoptive parents. I am not against adoption, but one said, "Being a parent has nothing to do with where you got your child." I cannot agree with that. My being a parent had a lot to do with where I got the child.

Support not linked to visitation

Yesterday's stupid newspaper advice column says:

Dear Girlfriend: Since your boyfriend is still paying child support, he may be entitled to regularly enforced visitation with his son. Also, some courts are beginning to recognize and address parental alienation. Please suggest to your boyfriend that he discuss his options with a lawyer who has experience in this area.

I am not including the original letter because it has contradictory facts. An online comment correctly points out:

And, Annies, PLEASE stop saying that child support and visitation rights are somehow tied together. Paying child support does not entitle you to visitation, having a child of whom you are not the custodial parent (with certain exceptions) does. Not paying child support is not a legal reason for your ex-spouse to withhold visitation, either. Child support and visitation with the non-custodial parent are the rights of the child, and you can't use one to enforce the other.

Yes, I pay child support, and I do not get to see my kids. That is the system. I occasionally meet someone who says, "How could you not get visitation? Just hold up the child support check until you get to see your kids." Nope. It does not work that way.

Misha's special space

The Mercury News reports:

SAN JOSE -- Misha Byrne wants to spend his final moments in his special room, among his video game heroes and kittens.

After battling leukemia for four years, doctors told his parents earlier this month that their 10-year-old has just weeks, maybe months, to live. A bone-marrow transplant three years ago put his cancer into remission, but it returned in October 2010 and has slowly taken its toll.
For the past seven months, Misha has found comfort in the dream bedroom he received from Special Spaces Bay Area, a San Ramon-based nonprofit that remakes bedrooms for children with life-threatening illnesses. Misha was the chapter's first project.
He has told his parents he wants to die there, said his dad, Brendan Byrne. ...

The room has been bittersweet for Misha's parents. They are happy he has his special room to retreat to, and that he no longer is in and out of the hospital, but they wish there were more options for Misha.

Bittersweet for Misha's parents??! Is this some kind of sick joke?

The article fails to mention that Misha only gets to see his mom in supervised visits.
Before the leukemia was diagnosed, the mom was accused of child abuse based on some bruises, and the boy was taken away from her. What they apparently did not realize was that excessive bruising is a common symptom of leukemia.

When the diagnosis was made, no one was willing to admit the erroneous accusation. Instead they doubled down. They got a schlock lawyer-psychologist to write a bogus affidavit:

3. I have conducted more than a thousand evaluations including psychological and child custody evaluations for Family Court in Santa Clara County. ...

6. ... Ms. See-the-son did not have adequate information to determine if the Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (with Borderline, Narcissistic and Dependent features) diagnosed by Dr. Pushy nearly five years ago had ameliorated and/or no longer remained problematic for Ms. Choosy's ability to parent. ...

8. Personality Disorders do not typically ameliorate merely with time. Often intensive psychotherapy over a prolonged course of care is necessary to effectively treat these conditions. I have reviewed no information that indicates that Ms. Choosy has engaged in such treatment efforts or that her Personality Disorder has ameliorated.

9. Personality Disorders can negatively impact an individual's ability to appropriately and effectively parent a child or children. Personality Disorder features such as those identified by Dr. Pushy, including instability in relationships, marked impulsivity, grandiosity, lack of empathy, and excessive need to be taken care of can significantly impair parent-child relationships and raise the potential of health and safety issues. Such features can negatively impact a parent's ability to promote positive psychological development for a child.

10. There remains evidence to suggest that Personality Disorder continues to be an appropriate diagnosis for Ms. Choosy in that she demonstrated problems accepting supervision provided by Ms. Bitchy Bagboy of TLC.

The mom is a Russian immigrant who reared her son from birth, and she does have problems accepting the malicious limits on her seeing her dying son. She has spent all of her time, money, and energy for the last 5 years trying to see her boy, and all she gets is supervised visits.

The above lawyer-psychologist is not Jewish, as far as I know, and as one of my persistent commenters will probably point out. He prefers to call these people "just greedy court personnel, who may happen to be of certain faiths, and occupations." No, I say that the term "just greedy court personnel" is insufficient. That is like describing a serial killer as a scofflaw who just happens to kill people.

The officials in this case are evil and destructive. Even if we assume that the mom might have a personality that could include "instability in relationships, marked impulsivity, grandiosity, lack of empathy, and excessive need to be taken care of", how does that justify preventing her from seeing her dying son? It takes much more than greed to write an affidavit like that. It takes a callous and anti-family ideologue with an almost-criminal disregard for human life.

BIOTCh contrary to rule of law

The Best Interest Of The Child (BIOTCh) in the family court is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law, as law has been understood since Hammurabi in ancient Babylon. Plato advocated rule by a philosopher king, but his student Aristotle convincingly explained the superiority of rule of law. Western civilization is built on the idea that Aristotle was right.

All American courts are based on rule of law, except that the family court clings to the idea that a judge can act as a philosopher king and decide the best interest of a child. It cannot be done without punishing parents and others for allegations and transgressions that are not contrary to any laws, rules, regulations, or policies that are written anywhere. The idea that a judge or psychologist can read some legal briefs or interview the parties and then make objectively make child-rearing decisions is as ludicrous as Plato's idea.

The main argument against Plato's idea is that the wisdom and objectivity required is unattainable. But even if a judge of infinite wisdom could be found, there are at least two other reasons that such a judge would be unacceptable.

First, if a judge is not ruling based on written rules, then there is necessarily an arbitrariness to his decisions, and we are not free men if we live under such arbitrary rule.

Second, such judicial actions destroy incentives. Eg, even if a judge could be found to assess taxes in a way that wisely and fair redistributes the wealth, then incentives to earn money would be dampened because men could not reliably predict what they could keep.

These same considerations apply to family court. Parents do not have the freedom and authority to be parents if they can always be second-guessed by a family court judge. And court interventions create bad incentives.

Suppose this court finds that a judge an order grandparent visits if there has been a history of such visits and the judge's opinion is that the BIOTCh requires continuing such visits. Other parents may see this, and decide that allowing grandparent visits is dangerous because it exposes the family to court intervention. Thus one BIOTCh order in favor of grandparent visitation may result in other grandparents being refused visits.

The BIOTCh is the core of the problem here. If the law said that all grandparents had a right to visit their grandkids for 2 hours a week, then the arguments in this brief would not apply. The problem occurs when some judge tries to play God and apply the BIOTCh. The BIOTCh is inherently unjusticiable and contrary to legal standards.

Most states make no attempt to define the BIOTCh at all. A couple of states (I only know of Michigan and Florida) list a dozen factors to consider. But the judge has no guidance on how to evaluate or rank the factors. When it comes to a simple question like grandparent visits, the judge must rely on his gut instincts.

Many states rely on psychologists or other so-called experts for recommendations. But even the psychology profession is largely of the opinion that these recommendations are unethical. Their expertise is in treating mental disorders, and they usually have no professional competence or basis for making a decision about grandparent visits.

Our Western civilization is based on the idea that parents will have the autonomy to rear their kids as they believe is best. This principle has served us well for millennia. Maybe an exception should be made to require grandparent visits. This brief does not take a position on that. But such an exception should be carefully considered by the legislative, and be codified as predictable regulations. Requiring such an exception based on some judge's opinion of the BIOTCh is unpredictable, unworkable, and contrary to everything our justice system stands for.

Father’s interest is cognizable and substantial

There is a visitation case that might be headed for the US Supreme Court. It would not help me, but I will post more about it if it happens. Meanwhile, here are some pro-father quotes from briefs:

See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 247–48 (1978) (“[A] father’s interest in the ‘companionship, care, custody, and management’ of his children is ‘cognizable and substantial,’ . . . and, on the other hand, . . . the State’s interest in caring for the children is ‘de minimis’ if the father is in fact a fit parent.”) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651–52, 657–58 (1972)); see also Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 262 (1983) (“The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child’s future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent–child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child’s development.”). Indeed, respondents are a paradigmatic example of the family unit that this Court has sought to protect from uninvited, unwarranted state intervention. See Quilloin, 434 U.S. at 255 (“We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended ‘[i]f a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some show-ing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.’ ... But this is not a case in which the unwed father at any time had, or sought, actual or legal custody of his child.”) (quoting Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 862–63 (1977) (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment)).

Someday, the court may have to take these platitudes seriously.

Before the new judge

My ex-wife and I appeared before Judge Almquist at 8:30 this morning. He called us first, and told us to come back at 11:00. The courtroom was empty when we came back.

Call me paranoid, but I get the impression that the judges do not want any witnesses to our case. Every time we appeared before Judge Morse, she always called our case dead last after everyone else had left the courtroom. Sometimes that meant waiting 3 hours thru 25 other cases. What do the judges accomplish by this? They know that the case is on my blog, so there is no secret about it.

At 11:00, the judge said that there were visitation orders in effect, so that there was no need for court action. He bought my ex-wife's argument that Judge Morse did not want any more motions for 2 years. When I complained that I was not getting any visitation, he rambled about how it was all my fault because I wrote about the case on my blog and now Ken Perlmutter does not want to have anything to do with us.

Nothing he said made much sense. Perlmutter was the court-appointed psychologist who testified in 2010. He did not even say that there was anything wrong with my parenting methods and was in favor of visitation.

The asked my ex-wife why I was not getting visitation. She rambled about how I violated a visitation supervision agreement once by taking a picture of our child, and how the supervisor did not believe my promises to not bring a camera and wanted to search me before each visit.

I said, "Can I respond to that?" The judge said "No." I responded anyway, and explained that the written visitation contract only prohibited pictures on the first visit, and that I complied with the contract and with the supervisor's commands.

The judge suggested that we get another supervisor. I proposed one, who is a licensed MFT in the area who specializes in situations like mine, but my ex-wife rejected him.

I asked, "Is it up to the supervisor whether I can have pictures of my own children?" The judge stumbled on that question. He said that this was only his second day on the family court, and he doesn't really know how the visitation supervisors work. But he assumes that they are trained and licensed and capable of making a decision like whether I can have a picture of my kids.

Actually, most of the visitation supervisors do not have any training or licensing, and the judge should certainly not be delegating to them such a decision. But I was not able to educate him on how the system works.

It is pretty crazy to try to prevent me from having pictures of my own kids. Even if I were a convicted felon in prison, I would still be allowed to have pictures of my kids.

At this point, the judge wanted to get rid of us. He kept saying things like, "It is all in your own control." That said something about his character. Nothing is in my control. My ex-wife has total temporary legal and physical custody of our kids, and I do not even have a visitation order. It is all at her discretion and I have not even seen my kids for a couple of months.

The judge also issued a veiled threat. He said that I have alienated others and he is going to be the family court judge for the next three years, so if I alienate him then he can prevent me from seeing my kids. Wow, it is his second day on the job, and the power has gone to his head already.

My motion for visitation

I just got a brief by my ex-wife opposing me getting any custody of visitation. She said:

The Petitioner, George AngryDad (hereinafter, “George”), brings a motion for child custody and visitation, in contradiction to the ruling of the August 10, 2011 Court Order, stating that “the[re] shall be no modification to the custody order for two (2) years”. ...

1. An August 10, 2011 Court Order is in place, stating “the[re] shall be no modification to the custody order for two (2) years”.

a. This Court Order had at least the following information before it (since November of 2007) to make such a decision:
-multiple trials with numerous witnesses;
-numerous court hearings;
-interviews with the therapeutic visitation supervisor for the children;
-interview with the children by Family Court services;
-a CPS narrative report with witness testimony;
-a full child custody and visitation evaluation and recommendations;
-years of records of George’s interaction with the children and/or lack thereof;
-George’s in and out of court behavior;
-the childrens’ express wishes;
-the Court’s study of and personal experience with George;
-the appellate record;
-my testimony:
-the testimony of Court appointed experts;
-the testimony of visitation supervisors and therapeutic visitation supervisors;
-George’s testimony; and
-testimony of George’s experts and witnesses.

2. George’s description of the Case History in his moving papers is intentionally
and consistently severely distorted and misleading. I respectfully direct the Court to Dr. Perlmutter’s 2010 40 page single-spaced full child custody and visitation
evaluation report for an accurate and unbiased description of the case history. Dr.
Perlmutter was the child custody evaluator appointed by the Court to perform the
evaluation in 2010.

Her briefs nearly always accuse me of lying, and yet she is never able to give an examples. Here, she merely suggests that the judge read a 40-page single-spaced report and compare it to my summary to find discrepencies between that report and my brief. How crazy is that? The judge is not going to read that report, or find any errors in what I wrote.

It is a problem that Judge Morse said that she did not want any modifications for two years. But she also refused to make a permanent order. Under California law, I can request a change to a permanent order once a year. I only have a temporary order. Surely a temporary order is more temporary than a permanent order.

Yes, the court has had a lot of info, but it did not find me unfit and it did not issue a permanent order. The worst Judge Morse found was:

experiences being adduced into evidence, such as enrolling them in a math test which was reportedly way above their abilities; and resetting their alarm clock which prevented them from being prepared for school.

and that I might have Aspergers. For that my parental rights have been eliminated. Temporarily. For two more years. In addition to the temporary orders for the last four years. Meanwhile, I don't even have any visitation.

New court motion

I just filed a court motion for better child custody and/or visitation, even tho Judge Heather D. Morse said not to for two years. She said that the kids need a break from the litigation.

Her argument does not make any sense. My kids are not getting a break. They have been put court supervision for the last 4 years, while the court has only issued temporary orders.

Here the case background I filed, with some names changed.

Case history
This case began in 2003 with a signed marital settlement agreement for 50-50 shared joint child custody of our two daughters. Jill made a motion for sole legal custody in 2004, but a full custody trial in 2005 resulted in a permanent order for 50-50 joint legal and physical custody.

Jill got temporary sole physical custody in Nov. 2007 as the result of an ex parte motion alleging emotional abuse, and Cmr. Joseph ordered a psychological evaluation to investigate the allegations and make recommendations. When he refused to appoint a psychologist, I appealed, and the 6th District ruled that there was indeed a final permanent child custody determination in 2005, but that the allegations constituted a sufficient change in circumstances for a temporary order pending the evaluation.

Ken Perlmutter eventually did the evaluation in early 2010. He did not find any abuse, or any other problem with our four years of joint custody. He said that we had no psychological disorders and no need for counseling. He said that Jill is not any better parent than I am, and he disagreed with how the court has handled the case. He recommended a six-month visitation plan, and suggested going back to him for an update. That plan ended in Fall 2010.

We had a trial on several days from Nov. 2010 to Jan. 2011 where Jill and her witnesses were invited to present whatever evidence they had against returning to joint custody, and to say what changes would be required of me, if any.

An April 2011 order upheld Perlmutter’s recommendation, but did not disturb the permanent 50-50 custody determination of 2005. Jill’s subsequent motion for permanent sole custody was denied.

We are currently operating under temporary orders, as we have since Nov. 2007. Jill has permitted some visits with [local court babysitter] supervising. She does not know why the visits are supervised, and has not reported any problems. Visitation is at Jill’s discretion.

Testimony and findings
All witnesses testified that our kids love me and want a relationship with me. Perlmutter's report said:

A key and incontrovertible finding in this evaluation is that these children love and want a relationship with their father. [p.38, start of last paragraph]

All witnesses agreed that there has been no abuse, and there is no threat of abuse.

All witnesses agreed that there are no psychological disorders, and there is no recommendation for counseling. There is no testimony that anything would be gained by counseling.

No witness testified that Jill is any better parent than I am. Perlmutter testified that the chief difference between Jill and me was the court has wrongly given her temporary sole custody:

11 Q. And did you find evidence favoring one parent
12 over the other?
13 A. I found existence of what the current
14 situation is. She's not a better parent than you.
15 She's not -- they are not more in love with her than
16 you. They've developed a different relationship with
17 her based on the fact that you've spent minimum time
18 with them over the last two and a half years. [June depo., p.94]

The findings from the April 2011 order after hearing were:
1. George is to follow Perlmutter's plan and to read a book. (Completed in 2010.)
2. George is to request an update from Perlmutter. (Done, but he refused to do it.)
3. “George's daughters have a resilient love for their father and still wish to have a relationship with him, but on their terms and not his. They hope he can change.”
4. George is “physically incapable of perceiving why he was being prevented from having unsupervised time with his children.”
5. “the court finds that the parties' time and money could be better spent to improve the parental relationships while there is still time to do so.”

I don't see how anyone can read this and think that the court has been reasonable, or that the kids need a break from litigation.

Grandparent visitation rights

The US Supreme Court is considering whether to hear this case:

Issue: Whether under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, grandparents who seek court-ordered visitation with their grandchildren must prove that a compelling circumstance necessitates visitation, or whether constitutional requirements are instead satisfied where the court considering the visitation request applies a presumption in favor of the parents' wishes and places on the petitioning grandparent the burden of proving that visitation is in the children's best interest.

I agree with the Alabama SC, and disagree with everything in the cert petition, except that these cases will keep coming back and Troxel was ambiguous.

(The link to the "opinion below" is wrong; the Alabama decision is here.)

The cert petition agrees with giving the grandparents visitation because:

The trial court’s detailed opinion in this case perfectly reflects that delicate balancing; the judge carefully considered all of the affected parties’ in-terests, while paying an extra measure of deference to the parents’ wishes.

Parents have no rights if minor parental decisions can be overridden by a judge who merely says that he is "paying an extra measure of deference to the parents’ wishes."

I guess that some people might read the factual history as favoring the grandparents, but I do not. Consider:

[The mother] testified that when the children were very young, the two families had basically blended together and had acted as a single unit, with the paternal grand-mother asserting a great deal of control over the care of the children, sometimes even in violation of the mother’s desires.

I suppose that some would read this as suggesting that the judge should try to reconstruct that happier period when the grandma often got her way with the kids. I don't see it that way at all. If that were the rule, then parents would be prudent to always overrule whatever the grandparents say, for fear that they might set a precedent that would be used against the parents later in court.

This grandparent visitation issue is just an amusing sideshow. There are about 20 more important issues where the family court is denying parental rights in what ought to be violations of constitutional rights. But the federal courts won't hear any of it.

Judge cannot delegate

A reader asked about my recent claim that a family court judge cannot delegate a custody or visitation decision to an evaluator or psychologist.

Here is the California court precedent:

"The power of decision vested in the trial court is to be exercised by a duly constituted judge, and that power may not be delegated to investigators or other subordinate officials or attaches of the court, or anyone else .... It is the constitutional right of every citizen and every litigant to be governed by the law as expounded by the judges, and not by officials or employees provided by the legislature to assist a judge in an administrative or quasi-judicial capacity. Such help as may be accorded a judge to assist him in the exercise of his judicial functions may never be permitted to reach the point where someone else decides the case or an issue before him."
In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 811 [161 Cal.Rptr. 879]

Yes, Judge Heather D. Morse does it anyway. Technically, the parties need to object, and make sure that the evaluator is just giving a recommendation that requires further court action.