Post by DrivenAwayDad on Feb 18, 2009 18:34:11 GMT -5
This will be a series of emails to request that a State Rep be removed from the Family Law Committee.
Dear Chairwoman Gile and Child & Family Law Committee Members,
RE: Yesterday’s Public Hearing on HB139
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you yesterday during this public hearing. The importance of passing this bill and changing some of the antiquated traditional family values held by our current statutes and some legislators is critical. It is no less critical than changing the social mindset (and Supreme Court opinion) from the late 1800’s articulated by Mr. Steven Vogel at the hearing that denied a woman the opportunity to become a lawyer and not just a homemaker based solely on her gender.
I want to follow up with this note as an addendum to my earlier testimony since time was so limited during the hearing.
First, I’d like to address Madam Chairwoman Gile’s requests for some speakers to return to the pending subcommittee and offer more testimony. This request was made to only a few personally selected persons giving testimony today, all of which were opposed to the passage of this Bill (it is apparent that Chairwoman Gile must be opposed to the Bill). I believe that this clear exercise of prejudice by Chairwoman Gile is very inappropriate and not in accordance with House Committee Rules or in the best interest of public confidence or policymaking. Given this, I believe it is in the public interest for Chairwoman Gile to resign from the committee and I respectfully request that she do so immediately with no further action on this Bill.
Secondly, I’d like to comment on some of the standard playbook misconceptions and untruths that you have been, and will continue to have presented to you by the opposition to reform. Specifically and briefly:
1. PROFITEERS: All profiteers from the chaos in the current family law system are not credible witnesses and should have their testimony appropriately discarded. Attorneys, Marital Mediators, GAL’s, Judges and Marital Masters all earn a substantial living because of the chaos in the system at the expense of children and families and any reform would clearly make their jobs less necessary and lucrative. Naturally, hurting your own earnings capacity and lowering your own standard of living is not something a reasonable person would do. Consequently, it is very rare to find such people to testify for appropriate reform in the best interests of children as reform would negatively effect their lives.
2. RSA 461-A:2 IS NOT WORKING: This statute is generally ignored by courts and profiteers since it is too vague. In concert with other statutes, it provides laws that are so subjective and require considerable use of discretion. Consequently, just about ANY family court decision can be deemed reasonable and not an unsustainable exercise of discretion or error of law. Simple court statistics show that ~85% of all contested custody cases result in a preponderance of “primary residential responsibility” awards to mothers and this proves this fact.
3. BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN, NOT PARENTS: This argument assumes the two are mutually exclusive and they are not. In fact, children with two involved parents that also WANT it that way, experience the best of both worlds. Currently, we incentivise acrimony between fit parents (often vying for money and control) as we try to determine who is the A+ parent and who is the A parent and subsequently who should get the spoils of control, child affection and love, money and assets (sadly it has become illegal to be an A parent). This winner take all mentality hurts children as their parents spend their estates fighting in court (often eliminating college budgets) and remain acrimonious for the remainder of the children’s adolescent life (just to maintain this advantage). THIS is not in the child’s best interest! Incidentally no court in the land will determine WHICH parent is the primary CAUSE of the acrimony and punish them (there is no time for that level of investigation) . Usually, since the public knows the courts historical decisions, a person can manufacture acrimony and win the spoils as a result. This reward the person who is not acting in the child’s best interest. This needs to change now.
4. OTHER STATES DO THIS: The previous mistakes of other states should NOT be used as desperate excuses to prevent change in NH. The foundation of our legislative process is that our laws need to be reviewed and revised on the merits of the facts and not the choices of other states or other countries. Profiteers use this same argument in reverse to oppose joint parenting arrangements as they claim that the judge rules each case on its merits. The difference is that the probabilities for inappropriate decisions are far larger from a single person who is able to be unduly influenced (judge) than a body of people (jury or legislative committee). We need to lead reform in NH and not play follow the leader by allowing other state’s broken laws influence our decisions.
5. CASE BY CASE BASIS: Profiteers claim that our courts rule on each case on a case by case basis. This is true however; each ruling is considerably biased by the standing social prejudice (Tender Years Doctrine) that mothers are more important than fathers in children’s lives. Today we benefit immensely from female attorneys (change from late 1800’s). Just imagine the benefit to children, society, schools, jails, etc. if we PROMOTED fatherhood and involved parents instead of PREVENTING it. The data is indisputable and easy to find online. One good source of information is in Dr. Baskerville’s book, Taken into Custody, that was just sent to all committee members. Additionally, courts do not have the budget and resources to properly investigate the merits of each case and they are forced to paint many cases with a broad brush (when a contest exists, Mom wins unless she’s REALLY unfit). Remember that the judges subcontract out much of the actual work relative to investigating the family dynamics (GAL, parenting coordinator, mediator, neutral case evaluator, ect.). We need SPECIFIC rules (not subjective ones) to help judges make appropriate decisions based on the fractured presentation of data that they have to deal with.
6. SUCCESSFUL ARRANGEMENTS ARE THOSE MADE BY THE PARENTS: This IS true. However the missing piece here is that parties often disagree because unreasonable demands are initiated by Mom, who knows from court performance history, that this strategy will make her the victor in the legal contest. Additionally, unreasonable justifications are often used by our courts for the basis of creating primary and secondary parents such as:
a. They don’t get along (the cause of this is never determined and often the unreasonable person is rewarded)
b. This is how parenting time was split when they were married (a NEW arrangement is warranted after a family divorces, that’s a significant change in circumstances and does NOT support continuing with a parenting arrangement made under different pretenses (marriage)
c. Dad didn’t ask for equal parenting time (this may well be at the advice of his lawyer who explained the anti-father bias in the system and that he’ll just waste time and money trying to challenge the mother. The state should be PROMOTING his involvement since it’s the policy of the state per RSA 461-A?
d. Dad does not have an appropriate domicile or financial security (this may be because he was financially abused by the family court while fighting for his parenting rights during his divorce)
e. Kids need “consistency” (the family is getting DIVORCED, in that there is inconsistency) . Also cycling the kids back and forth between homes 2-3 times per week is NOT consistent but courts order it all the time. Courts need your CLEAR guidance with less discretion
f. The list goes on and on. Some of the reasons would APPALL you but the profiteers keep the facts from your discovery by stating “we’re not here to discuss individual cases”. THIS however is where the root cause facts are and keeping them from you forces you to make uninformed decisions. Our kids need better and you need the facts.
7. CONSISTANCY NOT AMOUNT OF TIME IS BEST: This is absurd. By way of example, four hours per week with a child CONSISTANTLY, does not support FREQUENT AND CONTINUING CONTACT per RSA 461-A. These arguments are desperate attempts to protect the status quo. I can’t blame them for defending their financial livelihood but we should make it so it’s not at the expense of our children.
8. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PROBLEM: Yes it is. And it is also one of the most widely abused false allegations used as a litigious tactic to gain the spoils of divorce litigation. This social problem pulls at the heart strings of all of us but biased domestic violence advocates continually state that men are the abusers and consequently are not deserving of being equal parents and women are the victims. This false and narcissistic opinion will constantly be presented to you however there is MUCH research available to prove this all to be false and simply part of an initiative to empower special interests to make more MONEY as they receive federal funds and “help” all women victims with their male abusers. Here are some examples of the truth that these special interest advocates will continue to shelter you from. Ironically, studies show that if their logic was valid, courts should be making fathers, not mothers, the primary parent if they were to rule in the children’s best interest.
pn.psychiatr yonline.org/ cgi/content/ full/42/15/ 31-a
www.national post.com/ todays_paper/ story.html? id=1246105
9. Finally, I’ll share one example I’m aware of regarding the role of the police and their refusal to uphold the law. It’s chronic. I have first hand experience where a mother was withholding the children from the father for court ordered parenting time. When the Plaistow police were asked to help enforce the order, they declined and stated that they do not get involved with civil matters and referred the father to family court. The father then asked the officer to enforce RSA 633:4 of the Criminal Code, Interference with Custody, and the officer refused and stated that even if the father returned with a court order requiring him to do so, he still would not. When the situation was escalated to the Police Chief’s office, no response could be obtained.
THIS is what the NH police think of court orders in family matters. It’s all a big joke and the joke is on the kids. This needs to stop now. Please help. Vote OTP on HB139 for starters.
Sincerely,
Jeff Oligny
President, www.ncfcnh.org
CC: House Speaker Terie Norelli
Dear Chairwoman Gile and Child & Family Law Committee Members,
RE: Yesterday’s Public Hearing on HB139
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you yesterday during this public hearing. The importance of passing this bill and changing some of the antiquated traditional family values held by our current statutes and some legislators is critical. It is no less critical than changing the social mindset (and Supreme Court opinion) from the late 1800’s articulated by Mr. Steven Vogel at the hearing that denied a woman the opportunity to become a lawyer and not just a homemaker based solely on her gender.
I want to follow up with this note as an addendum to my earlier testimony since time was so limited during the hearing.
First, I’d like to address Madam Chairwoman Gile’s requests for some speakers to return to the pending subcommittee and offer more testimony. This request was made to only a few personally selected persons giving testimony today, all of which were opposed to the passage of this Bill (it is apparent that Chairwoman Gile must be opposed to the Bill). I believe that this clear exercise of prejudice by Chairwoman Gile is very inappropriate and not in accordance with House Committee Rules or in the best interest of public confidence or policymaking. Given this, I believe it is in the public interest for Chairwoman Gile to resign from the committee and I respectfully request that she do so immediately with no further action on this Bill.
Secondly, I’d like to comment on some of the standard playbook misconceptions and untruths that you have been, and will continue to have presented to you by the opposition to reform. Specifically and briefly:
1. PROFITEERS: All profiteers from the chaos in the current family law system are not credible witnesses and should have their testimony appropriately discarded. Attorneys, Marital Mediators, GAL’s, Judges and Marital Masters all earn a substantial living because of the chaos in the system at the expense of children and families and any reform would clearly make their jobs less necessary and lucrative. Naturally, hurting your own earnings capacity and lowering your own standard of living is not something a reasonable person would do. Consequently, it is very rare to find such people to testify for appropriate reform in the best interests of children as reform would negatively effect their lives.
2. RSA 461-A:2 IS NOT WORKING: This statute is generally ignored by courts and profiteers since it is too vague. In concert with other statutes, it provides laws that are so subjective and require considerable use of discretion. Consequently, just about ANY family court decision can be deemed reasonable and not an unsustainable exercise of discretion or error of law. Simple court statistics show that ~85% of all contested custody cases result in a preponderance of “primary residential responsibility” awards to mothers and this proves this fact.
3. BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN, NOT PARENTS: This argument assumes the two are mutually exclusive and they are not. In fact, children with two involved parents that also WANT it that way, experience the best of both worlds. Currently, we incentivise acrimony between fit parents (often vying for money and control) as we try to determine who is the A+ parent and who is the A parent and subsequently who should get the spoils of control, child affection and love, money and assets (sadly it has become illegal to be an A parent). This winner take all mentality hurts children as their parents spend their estates fighting in court (often eliminating college budgets) and remain acrimonious for the remainder of the children’s adolescent life (just to maintain this advantage). THIS is not in the child’s best interest! Incidentally no court in the land will determine WHICH parent is the primary CAUSE of the acrimony and punish them (there is no time for that level of investigation) . Usually, since the public knows the courts historical decisions, a person can manufacture acrimony and win the spoils as a result. This reward the person who is not acting in the child’s best interest. This needs to change now.
4. OTHER STATES DO THIS: The previous mistakes of other states should NOT be used as desperate excuses to prevent change in NH. The foundation of our legislative process is that our laws need to be reviewed and revised on the merits of the facts and not the choices of other states or other countries. Profiteers use this same argument in reverse to oppose joint parenting arrangements as they claim that the judge rules each case on its merits. The difference is that the probabilities for inappropriate decisions are far larger from a single person who is able to be unduly influenced (judge) than a body of people (jury or legislative committee). We need to lead reform in NH and not play follow the leader by allowing other state’s broken laws influence our decisions.
5. CASE BY CASE BASIS: Profiteers claim that our courts rule on each case on a case by case basis. This is true however; each ruling is considerably biased by the standing social prejudice (Tender Years Doctrine) that mothers are more important than fathers in children’s lives. Today we benefit immensely from female attorneys (change from late 1800’s). Just imagine the benefit to children, society, schools, jails, etc. if we PROMOTED fatherhood and involved parents instead of PREVENTING it. The data is indisputable and easy to find online. One good source of information is in Dr. Baskerville’s book, Taken into Custody, that was just sent to all committee members. Additionally, courts do not have the budget and resources to properly investigate the merits of each case and they are forced to paint many cases with a broad brush (when a contest exists, Mom wins unless she’s REALLY unfit). Remember that the judges subcontract out much of the actual work relative to investigating the family dynamics (GAL, parenting coordinator, mediator, neutral case evaluator, ect.). We need SPECIFIC rules (not subjective ones) to help judges make appropriate decisions based on the fractured presentation of data that they have to deal with.
6. SUCCESSFUL ARRANGEMENTS ARE THOSE MADE BY THE PARENTS: This IS true. However the missing piece here is that parties often disagree because unreasonable demands are initiated by Mom, who knows from court performance history, that this strategy will make her the victor in the legal contest. Additionally, unreasonable justifications are often used by our courts for the basis of creating primary and secondary parents such as:
a. They don’t get along (the cause of this is never determined and often the unreasonable person is rewarded)
b. This is how parenting time was split when they were married (a NEW arrangement is warranted after a family divorces, that’s a significant change in circumstances and does NOT support continuing with a parenting arrangement made under different pretenses (marriage)
c. Dad didn’t ask for equal parenting time (this may well be at the advice of his lawyer who explained the anti-father bias in the system and that he’ll just waste time and money trying to challenge the mother. The state should be PROMOTING his involvement since it’s the policy of the state per RSA 461-A?
d. Dad does not have an appropriate domicile or financial security (this may be because he was financially abused by the family court while fighting for his parenting rights during his divorce)
e. Kids need “consistency” (the family is getting DIVORCED, in that there is inconsistency) . Also cycling the kids back and forth between homes 2-3 times per week is NOT consistent but courts order it all the time. Courts need your CLEAR guidance with less discretion
f. The list goes on and on. Some of the reasons would APPALL you but the profiteers keep the facts from your discovery by stating “we’re not here to discuss individual cases”. THIS however is where the root cause facts are and keeping them from you forces you to make uninformed decisions. Our kids need better and you need the facts.
7. CONSISTANCY NOT AMOUNT OF TIME IS BEST: This is absurd. By way of example, four hours per week with a child CONSISTANTLY, does not support FREQUENT AND CONTINUING CONTACT per RSA 461-A. These arguments are desperate attempts to protect the status quo. I can’t blame them for defending their financial livelihood but we should make it so it’s not at the expense of our children.
8. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PROBLEM: Yes it is. And it is also one of the most widely abused false allegations used as a litigious tactic to gain the spoils of divorce litigation. This social problem pulls at the heart strings of all of us but biased domestic violence advocates continually state that men are the abusers and consequently are not deserving of being equal parents and women are the victims. This false and narcissistic opinion will constantly be presented to you however there is MUCH research available to prove this all to be false and simply part of an initiative to empower special interests to make more MONEY as they receive federal funds and “help” all women victims with their male abusers. Here are some examples of the truth that these special interest advocates will continue to shelter you from. Ironically, studies show that if their logic was valid, courts should be making fathers, not mothers, the primary parent if they were to rule in the children’s best interest.
pn.psychiatr yonline.org/ cgi/content/ full/42/15/ 31-a
www.national post.com/ todays_paper/ story.html? id=1246105
9. Finally, I’ll share one example I’m aware of regarding the role of the police and their refusal to uphold the law. It’s chronic. I have first hand experience where a mother was withholding the children from the father for court ordered parenting time. When the Plaistow police were asked to help enforce the order, they declined and stated that they do not get involved with civil matters and referred the father to family court. The father then asked the officer to enforce RSA 633:4 of the Criminal Code, Interference with Custody, and the officer refused and stated that even if the father returned with a court order requiring him to do so, he still would not. When the situation was escalated to the Police Chief’s office, no response could be obtained.
THIS is what the NH police think of court orders in family matters. It’s all a big joke and the joke is on the kids. This needs to stop now. Please help. Vote OTP on HB139 for starters.
Sincerely,
Jeff Oligny
President, www.ncfcnh.org
CC: House Speaker Terie Norelli
