What’s Up with Shared Parenting?

Why Are MRA Groups Pushing “Shared Parenting” Bills?

Michigan is just the latest state to consider this fathers’-rights-supported measure, which, despite the euphemistic name, poses a big problem for victims of domestic violence.

Written by Kathi Valeii  November 1, 2017

Michigan is considering a shared parenting bill, promoted by fathers’ rights groups, which, as drafted, could be detrimental for victims of domestic abuse.

The bill would require family courts to grant joint legal custody and equal parenting time in custody disputes and divorce. HB 4691 made it out of committee this past summer and is awaiting a hearing in the house. The bill would essentially shift custody decision-making standards from centering the “best interests” of the child to centering the rights of parents. While touted as an equal-parenting initiative, the efforts are spearheaded by father’s rights groups who say that dads don’t don’t get a fair shake in family court. The bill has judges, lawmakers, and domestic abuse advocates concerned about the implications that these blanket rules would have on victims of domestic abuse.

National Parents Organization is the organization that works to advance these shared parenting bills across the country. According to its website, the goal is “to make shared parenting the norm by reforming the family courts and laws in every state.” And, while it strives to maintain an egalitarian agenda of working for parents of all genders, it is a father’s rights group, the grown-up dad version of a men’s rights activist organization, as its original name, Fathers and Families, belies.

The agenda behind shared parenting legislation is important to understand because, while the language around the bills purports to emphasize the rights of both children and parents, these efforts are actually fueled by men’s rights activists who believe that they have been disenfranchised by women and feminism, and that distinction and framework in this discussion matters a lot.

Even without blanket rules that require judges to award equal parenting time, the shift away from awarding sole custody to moms has been increasing, as social norms change. Though not codified in law, gendered language is not used in most state’s guidelines, and the presumption in most states that adhere to “best interests of the child” guidelines is that kids benefit from the presence of both parents.

The shared parenting bill is purportedly a way to reform antiquated and biased family courtroom practices that consider moms as primary caretakers to be the default best interest of the child. But, Rebecca Shiemke, family law attorney specialist for the Michigan Poverty Law Program, says most parents come to agreements about custody on their own, without court intervention. And, she says, gender bias in favor of women in the family courts has not been proven by empirical evidence. In fact, she says, evidence shows the contrary.

Continue Reading: https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/11/01/why-are-mra-groups-pushing-shared-parenting-bills


Joint Custody in Minnesota

A court in Minnesota presumes that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests. When parents seek joint child custody in Minnesota, the court will consider the following factors prior to reaching a decision:

  • The parents’ ability to communicate with one another in decisions that affect the rearing of the child
  • Whether it would be harmful to the child if one parent would have sole decision-making responsibility regarding the rearing of the child
  • The parents’ willingness to employ cooperative, diverse methods when making decisions that affect the child
  • Whether there is a history of domestic violence between the parents

For more information about child custody in Minnesota, speak with a qualified attorney in Minnesota or refer to the Minnesota statutes.


New research supports shared custody for children in divorce

  STAR TRIBUNE

Excerpts: Children in shared custody arrangements “do considerably better on every measure, from school success, to fewer teen pregnancies and drug use, to having optimism for the future,” said Dr. Ned Holstein, a public health practitioner and founder of the National Parents Organization(natioalparentsorganization.org), which aims to reform family court practices.

Holstein noted that in the past year, Missouri and Kentucky have passed “excellent shared parenting legislation,” following states including Utah, Arizona and Alaska.

“If you want to hasten the process of healing, or at least tolerance, the worst thing you can do is declare one person a winner and one person a loser,” he said.

“You’re both winners. You’re both going to be parents. That will actually diminish conflict.”

Read article in its entirety: http://www.startribune.com/rosenblum-new-research-supports-shared-custody-for-children-in-divorce/442255323/

The article is not “new” research. It’s just rhetoric to push a false narrative that shared parenting witll solve all problems. In reality the goal is to keep the problems going-to keep the money flowing. Rosenblum states, “What two factors vastly increase the likelihood of a healthy and happy future for kids after divorce? Mom and Dad.

That’s great if one parent isn’t an abusive and violent person. In family court, domestic violence has been reframed as just a “dispute” and violence is not handled in criminal court where it needs to be.

The systematic mishandling of domestic violence and child molest cases as “custody disputes” is based in a financial corruption scheme that calls for diverting grant program funding through “high conflict” cases, in the guise of promoting “fatherhood” and “shared parenting” post-divorce. Rather than assisting men become responsible parents, “Responsible Fatherhood”, “Access to Visitation Enforcement” (supervised visitation for noncustodial parents), “Child Support Enforcement” and similar federal programs perpetuate abuse of women and children through the legal system. Cindy Ross

There is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.

The vast majority of fathers do not abuse children, and there are many instances where courts have unjustly deprived children of good fathers. The problem is that the programs punish children living with healthy strong mothers by incentivizing courts to cash in by arbitrarily minimizing and even eliminating moms from the picture.   Linda Marie Sacks, Co-Chair of the Family Court Committee of the Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women

Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection by Cindy Ross © 

Excerpts: Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization.

In the guise of reducing poverty and promoting child welfare, women are forced to stay married and mothers are punished for seeking divorces. In the guise of amicable custody resolution, federal programs enforce the systematic abuse of women and children. The pretense is that government programs produce responsible fathers and healthy families. The reality is that federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection programs are lining the pockets of corrupted court officials and appointees.


RELATED: Happy Mother’s Day 

Advertisements

Looming Reckoning

Bill Clinton admitting secret government experiments on ...

Bill Clinton YouTube.com

‘What About Bill?’ Sexual Misconduct Debate Revives Questions About Clinton

The New York Times logo

Former President Bill Clinton last month in Baltimore. Some of his behavior while he was in office has been an uncomfortable subject for Democrats.

The New York Times  By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — Another woman went on national television this week to press her case of sexual assault by a powerful figure. But the accused was not Roy S. Moore or Harvey Weinstein or Donald J. Trump. It was Bill Clinton.

“I feel like people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton,” Juanita Broaddrick said on Fox News nearly two decades after first going public with her story. “All victims matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Who cares if you’re straight or you’re gay, or if you believe in God or not. We all have a right to be believed.”

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

The cultural conversation about women, power and sexual misconduct that has consumed the United States in recent weeks has now raised a question that is eagerly promoted by those on the political right just as it discomfits those on the political left: What about Bill? While Fox News and other conservative outlets revive years-old charges against Mr. Clinton to accuse Mr. Moore’s critics of hypocrisy, some liberals say it may be time to rethink their defense of the 42nd president.

Matthew Yglesias, a liberal blogger who once worked at the Center for American Progress, a pillar of the Clinton political world, wrote on Vox.com on Wednesday that “I think we got it wrong” by defending Mr. Clinton in the 1990s and that he should have resigned. Chris Hayes, the liberal MSNBC host, said on Twitter that “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”

Continue Reading: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%E2%80%98what-about-bill%E2%80%99-sexual-misconduct-debate-revives-questions-about-clinton/ar-BBF1tmr?li=BBnb7Kz


RELATED INFORMATION

Details on Bill Clinton’s ride on pedophile’s ‘Lolita Express’ sought

MSM Wants To Obliterate Bill Clinton Sex Predator Narrative

Bill Clinton’s looming reckoning as a sexual predator

Feminist Clinton INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND

MN Madness

GROPER AL FRANKEN LECTURED CONSERVATIVES ON ‘RESPECTING WOMEN’

Yet another “male feminist” exposed

In another tweet endorsing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Franken labeled Hillary “a progressive voice that will fight back against attacks on women’s rights.”

A search of Franken’s Twitter history shows he has repeatedly invoked his advocacy for women as a political tool.

In another instance, a prominent feminist writer said, “Franken has shown himself to be a genuine feminist ally,” due to his support for abortion and other causes.

Franken’s case yet again highlights the extraordinary amount of “male feminists” who strongly virtue signal about how much they care about women while sexually harassing them behind the scenes.

Now there are rumors circulating of a second victim as Franken is exposed as yet another flagrant hypocrite.

Follow on Twitter: 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

MN Supreme Court Petition for Review

Minnesota Supreme Court

Group photo of the seven members of the Minnesota Supreme Court

mncourts.gov/SupremeCourt

The Minnesota Supreme Court is, in effect, the final arbiter of the constitutional rights of the people of the state of Minnesota. Supreme Court decisions often serve as precedent for future cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court reviews petitions in approximately 800 cases a year and accepts review in about 1 in 8 cases. These cases can come from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, and Board of Judicial Standards. Election contests and appeals for first-degree murder cases are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is responsible for the regulation of the practice of law and for judicial and lawyer discipline. Additionally, as the highest court in Minnesota, it promulgates rules of practice and procedure for the legal system in the state.  http://www.mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/SupremeCourt.aspx

Let’s see how much the Supreme Court cares about the constitutional rights of MN citizens. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that my case and companion case won’t be accepted for review. And if it is accepted, the decision of the lower courts will be affirmed.

 (Double click to zoom)

  

 

 

Former Prosecutor Turned Judge-Jailed for Failure to Disclose Evidence

Image courtesy of suphakit73 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man

Another Domestic Violence Murder

Victim in south Minneapolis domestic killing had recently filed for divorce

My Huong Huynh Truong was killed after she had filed for divorce.

Photo: Hennepin County Jail

Evavold HRO Is Harassment: Judge Asphaug has History of Suppressing Evidence on Behalf of Applicant

The Down and Dirty in Dakota County on the Fraudulent HRO filed Against Dede Evavold

Fraudulent Harassment Restraining Order filed against Dede Evavold, co-defendant in Grazzini-Rucki criminal trial, on July 28, 2017. HRO fails to prove any harassment or threat actually happened, fails to meet legal standard of harassment.

HRO petition includes many procedural errors, and should not have been approved. To proceed with the HRO creates a due process violation, and does not respect the legal rights of Dede Evavold.

The HRO was signed, and approved by Judge Karen Asphaug, who presided over all 4 trials of the co-defendants in the Grazzini-Rucki criminal case and has been described as being the “personal judge” of the applicant filing for the HRO, David Rucki.

Judge Karen Asphaug (Twitter)

Judge Asphaug has a history of covering up the violent and criminal history of applicant, Rucki – and this fraudulent HRO is just another example of that.

For example – During the criminal trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Judge Asphaug suppressed any mention of Rucki’s violent and criminal history; when Sandra testified at her trial she wasn’t even allowed to allude to the restraining order she and her children received against him. During the same trial, Judge Asphaug suppressed the Rucki social service records documenting a history of abuse allegations the children raised against their father.

Further, Judge Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial. (Read More: Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety by Michael Volpe)

And now, shocking revelations from the largely redacted evidence that Dede Evavold received, as part of her case, reveal that Dakota County is issuing a probation violation against her, and threatening  jail, when there is no proof to suggest that she did anything wrong..

“7/19/2017, Gilbertsen, John P: “I was able to locate a speicif article reference by the victim (David Rucki) and it did contain information and commentary on the victim(s), much what was negative and sensationalistic in nature. However, I was unable to determine who in fact runs the blog, as the postings are under Aliases which do not clearly identify the person posting…

And,“When I reported back to Supervisor Griffin I indicated I did not feel there was information that we could glean that make it clear Ms. Evavold is the writer or runs the blog..”

Based on this evidence alone, ALL charges against Dede Evavold in this fraudulent HRO, and alleged probation violation, should be immediately dropped – there is no evidence of harassment, and no evidence that she is responsible for the posts in question.

So why is Judge Asphaug, and Dakota County pursuing this HRO against Evavold?

It is obvious that the purpose of this HRO is to suppress public scrutiny, and end all discussion on the Grazzini-Rucki family court and criminal cases. And the  Chaos and horror after courts step in for Rucki family. Dede Evavold is being used as a scapegoat so that by threatening her with jail, fines, stripping her of Freedom of Speech and threatening other legal action sends a strong message to deter those supporting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or Dede Evavold, or deter those speaking out about this case. This protects Judge Asphaug from being exposed for her actions during all 4 trials of the Grazzini-Rucki co-defendants, where she violated numerous laws, violated the Constitutional rights of all 4 defendants, demonstrated bias and acted with outrageous abuses of judicial power.

This fraudulent HRO is an abuse of the legal, and serves only to harass Dede Evavold – that the case would proceed this far shows just how lawless the courts in Dakota County really are.