You don't really think we have "no fault divorce" in Texas, do you? I am convinced the Texas Family Code is drawn up by the same folks who write the impossible-to-read or understand IRS Code - oh wait! It is - lawmakers! Do I sound anti-lawyers? Forgive me if I do. They really are not my favorite group of people in the world, and I must regrettably admit I am somewhat biased against them and think the so-called "LAW" should be more user friendly to those who wish to pursue a matter on their own behalf (otherwise known as the pro se litigant). Not only does the law not do much to help the pro se litigant, in some cases courts are downright hostile toward them, when they should applaud them; they are our U.S. Constitution in action. And who better to represent you than .....you?
The problem with letting a lawyer handle custody issues is that a lawyer is just an extension of the husband and wife. The fight continues, only through the lawyers, who can generally keep it going until someone cries uncle (runs out of money), and a winner emerges. The fight has a theme: His faults versus her faults. What happened to "NO FAULT?" Who makes these laws anyway? Oh yeah, we already established that. Those they benefit the most, the lawyers (there's that nasty little bias again).
Let's face it. We do not have no fault divorce in Texas. Fault, not law, is used to determine a nunber of things in divorce. Division of property and custody awards are both determined in large part by who can prove the other is more responsible for the breakup. In other words, who is most at fault for the failure of the marriage?
I heard a story just last week about a couple who both got drunk and in the throes of their drunken stupor, the wife ran the husband down with a car (not quite Clara Harris style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Madness because he lived). He got out of the hospital, and in typical alcoholic fashion, it all got swept under the rug. He refused to press charges, and they are getting along just fine ('til next time). She broke the law but cannot be prosecuted because he's her husband and refuses to testify against her. If they ever divorce, he's free to use it as evidence. Most of you are probably saying the same thing I am - Well I would too! Of course, we all would. My point is this. Husbands and wives do all manner of terrible things to one another they will never talk about - until divorce. And then they use it to gain legal advantage.
Unfortunately most divorces are heard by only 1 person, the judge. He or she is the trier of facts. In a jury trial, the jury is the trier of facts and the judge is the interpreter of the law. I think it is dangerous when you have just 1 trier of facts, especially when the lives of children weigh in the balance. Judges are human. They err. They can be biased, or tired, or bought, or screwed up in the head, or you can have the unfortunate dilemma of reminding them of an ex-inlaw they hate. They can be myopic in their view of the facts, so you may never get all your evidence in. They can be mysoginistic, so if you are a woman you're just out of luck because the law won't decide the fate of your children; a woman-hating world view will. Conversely, your case may be decided by a judge who just thinks the kids should always go to the mom, no matter what. Sorry, dad; you're left out in the cold.
No, the law has to change. We the citizens have to find a way to become loud enough so that the lawmakers can no longer ignore us.
Yours for a responsible judiciary,
Anna
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
In the interest of....
It is striking to me how quickly a life can change. One weekend you are at a birthday party for a darling 2-year-old, the next weekend, the marriage has fallen to pieces. Of course, we all know it didn’t happen that easily or quickly; there was dysfunction in the marriage even before the troubles surfaced for all the world to see.
In a few short days, or perhaps a month or two, after you’ve given it some time and realized it’s not going to work, you proceed with your plans. What will be the outcome for the children? You attempt a discussion with your estranged spouse. This is where the train switches tracks and heads for the dark tunnel, never to return. This is where it gets crazy. This is the twilight zone.
The next thing you know you are in a courtroom and a judge, whom neither of you has ever met, who has never laid eyes on your precious children and likely never will, is now, suddenly deciding what is in the best interest of your children. This after a hearing that lasts perhaps 45 minutes to two hours, depending on how much mud can get slung in round one.
Let this sink in for a moment. A judge, who does not know you or your family’s history together, is going to make a legal decision about what’s best for your children.
I don’t know how that strikes you, but it makes me mad.
A relationship is ending. That is painful for everyone. Some parents need a referee during this very tenuous time to help them act maturely for the benefit of their children so that they come to a common agreement as to how they will parent them. Instead what they generally choose is a boxing coach called a lawyer to give them pointers on delivering a one-two punch that will knock the other party down for the count. Sadly, the kids get knocked down too. They belong to both parents. When you eliminate a parent, you disenfranchise a kid.
When parents are fighting, the court needs to act in the best interest of the parents by equipping them to act in the best interest of their own children, for I firmly believe it is the parents, and not the courts, who know what is best for their children. When parents cannot agree, they are unwittingly making their children wards of the State.
If the courts mandated that before divorcing, parents go through “post-marriage” counseling classes together, including how to co-parent as single parents, and thereafter they had to formulate their own parenting plan, I believe the result would be fewer exploited and emotionally traumatized children.
That is truly in the interest of the child.
Anna
In a few short days, or perhaps a month or two, after you’ve given it some time and realized it’s not going to work, you proceed with your plans. What will be the outcome for the children? You attempt a discussion with your estranged spouse. This is where the train switches tracks and heads for the dark tunnel, never to return. This is where it gets crazy. This is the twilight zone.
The next thing you know you are in a courtroom and a judge, whom neither of you has ever met, who has never laid eyes on your precious children and likely never will, is now, suddenly deciding what is in the best interest of your children. This after a hearing that lasts perhaps 45 minutes to two hours, depending on how much mud can get slung in round one.
Let this sink in for a moment. A judge, who does not know you or your family’s history together, is going to make a legal decision about what’s best for your children.
I don’t know how that strikes you, but it makes me mad.
A relationship is ending. That is painful for everyone. Some parents need a referee during this very tenuous time to help them act maturely for the benefit of their children so that they come to a common agreement as to how they will parent them. Instead what they generally choose is a boxing coach called a lawyer to give them pointers on delivering a one-two punch that will knock the other party down for the count. Sadly, the kids get knocked down too. They belong to both parents. When you eliminate a parent, you disenfranchise a kid.
When parents are fighting, the court needs to act in the best interest of the parents by equipping them to act in the best interest of their own children, for I firmly believe it is the parents, and not the courts, who know what is best for their children. When parents cannot agree, they are unwittingly making their children wards of the State.
If the courts mandated that before divorcing, parents go through “post-marriage” counseling classes together, including how to co-parent as single parents, and thereafter they had to formulate their own parenting plan, I believe the result would be fewer exploited and emotionally traumatized children.
That is truly in the interest of the child.
Anna
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Don't Reason with a Sociopath!
I call them 'crazy-makers.' You know the type. Charming, articulate, smooth, likable... and cold, calculating, egocentric, and deadly - yes, I said deadly. The above are only a few of the adjectives to describe these psychological predators who target normal people and suck the very life out of them.
For the profile of a sociopath watch this short instructional video
For the profile of a sociopath watch this short instructional video
Sociopaths have a perception of the truth that is all their own. The problem is they are so convinced of their truth, that they have this amazing persuasive ability with others. They are the type who can lie, steal, rape, abuse....and it never happened. You are making things up and you are the one who is crazy. You present evidence that is concrete - they can convincingly explain away your concrete piece of black and white evidence. On the other hand, they have an uncanny ability to manipulate a flimsy piece of paper that is barely legible so that even an intelligent judge will sit there with a blank, glassy-eyed stare, nodding in agreement with them. It beats anything I have ever seen. I think they must have some sort of hypnotic ability.
If you think you can reason with a sociopath or appeal to their conscience, forget it. You probably could if they had one, but they don't. That is one of the things that makes them so dangerous.
I have a theory that parental alienators are sociopaths. That is what enables them to heartlessly keep a parent from a child, even though there is no real compelling reason to do so. They just want to destroy them.
I personally witnessed this with my daughter who flew 4000 miles from Alaska to Texas just to surprise her son on his 6th birthday only to be refused access to him. All of our appealing to the child's best interest was to no avail. He even said he did not believe he is harming the child by intentionally keeping him from his mother (typical sociopathic denial). We were naive enough to believe that once he won custody, his controlling ways would stop. Please, if you're reading this, don't make that mistake. Like Elizabeth Bennett says - Bullies Do Not Grow Up: They Grow Worse. (Read her article here http://www.bloggernews.net/118363)
Having come away from such an unpleasant confrontation frustrated, sad, feeling powerless, watching my daughter sob, I at first felt angry, then depressed, then angry, then energized - so I started this blog.
I realized, though, after that experience, that I was obsessing over it so much that I was making myself crazy - and that's when I had the revelation. You can't reason with a sociopath. They don't care about your pain - and they never will. They don't care about what's best for their kid, and short of a lightning strike to reboot their brain, they never will. Nope. The only way you can deal with a bully is you have to find someone to stop them. And no, I don't mean a hit man!
The court is supposed to prevent that sort of thing. We shall see.
Anna
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
May the little guy win!
Usually when a fight is on, it's 'may the best man win.' In a custody battle, unfortunately, it's 'may the best parent win.' It should be 'may the little guy win.' That's right, defenseless, voiceless children are usually the ones who lose in a custody battle. Divorce proceedings should never become a competition between parents as to who is the best, but should always be about how they will parent the child now that they are no longer together. The legal system is not broke - the people who run it are. That's why I have started this blog - so that I can be a voice for the ones who have no defense. Join me in my crusade to stamp out legalized child abuse in the form of parental abuse of the legal system. I wonder how far we can go with this?
It is sad to me that the ones who suffer most - who stand to lose the most in a custody battle - are vulnerable children; and yet, they receive the least amount of care and legal protection for no other reason than the way the legal system is set up. The "best interest" doctrine is generally worthless when you have a wide disparity in the socioeconomic status of one parent versus another. In fact, I am guessing that the majority of custody suits are won based on who runs out of money first rather than what is best for the child. Sorry lawyers, but you seem to be the only ones who really profit from a custody suit.
I'll probably step on a lot of toes here, though I try not to purposely offend anyone, but I will also shoot from the hip and call it as I see it. Children are always the losers in a custody battle because, one way or another, they will come away minus two full-time parents. One will be the parent, and the other will usually be reduced to the status of 'babysitter' or 'fun uncle' who picks them up to do fun stuff. That will be true even in an amicable divorce, but if either parent is angry or vindicive and won't let the animosity go, even years later, well, here you have a recipe for enough emotional scarring to last a kid a lifetime.
Our great Family Code, which is designed with the right idea in mind, is put into practice by fallible attorneys and judges, not all of whom have scruples, frankly. When winning a legal battle becomes more important than if junior cries himself to sleep tonight because he misses his mommy, or when daddy can't see him except with a case worker present... there's got to be a better way.
There are mother's rights groups, father's rights groups - even a few children's rights groups, but I am not aware of even one group that addresses the legal rights of children in divorce/custody proceedings. In reality, children have no inherent defined legal rights in a custody proceeding that are specifically stated in the Texas Family Code. Their rights fall under the subcategory of the rights and responsibilities of the parents. The only quasi-right a child has is to the appointment of an attorney ad litem or an amicus. The ad litem is a great concept in theory, but in reality, they are generally only used in a CPS custody case and not in divorce. The purpose of an amicus is to help the court decide what is best for the child, not to represent the child's legal rights. My experience has been that they are more like a mediator between the parents and less like an advocate for the child. They don't argue for the child; they don't appeal on behalf of the child if they believe the trial court has erred; so, what do they really accomplish? Who do they really serve? They often turn out to be glorified social workers, and highly paid ones at that.
I am posing a challenge to anybody out there who will take up this cause. Let's work to change the way the Texas Family Code is applied. I know there are many folks out there who have been burned and have become disillusioned with the Family Court system. Perhaps, like me, you've spent countless hours and dollars trying to get justice only to find out you were several thousand dollars short.
I'm all for a different approach. Let's be a force for change. Speak out! Submit your articles, poems, inspirational stories, and ideas. The next kid you protect is someone's grandkid, niece, nephew, son or daughter. Protect them like you would protect your own.
For Free Speech,
Anna
It is sad to me that the ones who suffer most - who stand to lose the most in a custody battle - are vulnerable children; and yet, they receive the least amount of care and legal protection for no other reason than the way the legal system is set up. The "best interest" doctrine is generally worthless when you have a wide disparity in the socioeconomic status of one parent versus another. In fact, I am guessing that the majority of custody suits are won based on who runs out of money first rather than what is best for the child. Sorry lawyers, but you seem to be the only ones who really profit from a custody suit.
I'll probably step on a lot of toes here, though I try not to purposely offend anyone, but I will also shoot from the hip and call it as I see it. Children are always the losers in a custody battle because, one way or another, they will come away minus two full-time parents. One will be the parent, and the other will usually be reduced to the status of 'babysitter' or 'fun uncle' who picks them up to do fun stuff. That will be true even in an amicable divorce, but if either parent is angry or vindicive and won't let the animosity go, even years later, well, here you have a recipe for enough emotional scarring to last a kid a lifetime.
Our great Family Code, which is designed with the right idea in mind, is put into practice by fallible attorneys and judges, not all of whom have scruples, frankly. When winning a legal battle becomes more important than if junior cries himself to sleep tonight because he misses his mommy, or when daddy can't see him except with a case worker present... there's got to be a better way.
There are mother's rights groups, father's rights groups - even a few children's rights groups, but I am not aware of even one group that addresses the legal rights of children in divorce/custody proceedings. In reality, children have no inherent defined legal rights in a custody proceeding that are specifically stated in the Texas Family Code. Their rights fall under the subcategory of the rights and responsibilities of the parents. The only quasi-right a child has is to the appointment of an attorney ad litem or an amicus. The ad litem is a great concept in theory, but in reality, they are generally only used in a CPS custody case and not in divorce. The purpose of an amicus is to help the court decide what is best for the child, not to represent the child's legal rights. My experience has been that they are more like a mediator between the parents and less like an advocate for the child. They don't argue for the child; they don't appeal on behalf of the child if they believe the trial court has erred; so, what do they really accomplish? Who do they really serve? They often turn out to be glorified social workers, and highly paid ones at that.
I am posing a challenge to anybody out there who will take up this cause. Let's work to change the way the Texas Family Code is applied. I know there are many folks out there who have been burned and have become disillusioned with the Family Court system. Perhaps, like me, you've spent countless hours and dollars trying to get justice only to find out you were several thousand dollars short.
I'm all for a different approach. Let's be a force for change. Speak out! Submit your articles, poems, inspirational stories, and ideas. The next kid you protect is someone's grandkid, niece, nephew, son or daughter. Protect them like you would protect your own.
For Free Speech,
Anna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
