All my children (all 55 of them)

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Paternity fraud with a twist, but still only a part of a much bigger business

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,716798-4,00.html

Paris - He had claimed to be the natural father of 55 children - and now was exposed as a con-man.

A 55-year-old man from France confessed to have falsely claimed paternity of 55 children.  In each case he is said to have collected 150 to 200 Euros from the mothers of the children. The police stated that in return the women  were enabled to obtain residency permits.

Until now, most of the mothers had insisted that the man truly had been the father of their children. Some declared that they receive up to 7,500 Euros in government social assistance a month. The annual damage is estimated to amount to a total of almost a million Euros.

________________
Information related to paternity fraud:

• Table of Contents (F4L) — Paternity Fraud
• Search results for “paternity fraud” (at F4L)

Posted in Maternal Rights, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Custodial mother needs help

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The names (except mine) shown in the following are not the real names of the parties, to protect the innocent and the guilty.

Hello Mary,

You raised a number of points that call into question Canadian rules and practices pertaining to child support due to someone like you, someone who appears to be a citizen or resident of Canada.

Firstly, I don’t know whether you are in fact residing in Quebec.  That makes it impossible for me to direct you to an organization that may be able to help you or to direct you to someone else who can do so.

If you wish to spare yourself the reading of all I stated, the most important aspect of your complaints is that you did not specify what you need help with.  The unmentioned solution to all of your problems is quite simple and obvious: apply in the court to have it grant fully shared custody to the father of your children.  In addition, you should perhaps objectively examine whether there was an equitable sharing of all of the marital assets in your case and determine whether some of the assets you received should not in all honesty be transferred to your ex.

You raised many concerns.  It will be easier for me to answer each of those by inserting my responses between the lines of your message — which I will now do.

On 11/09/2010 6:27 AM, Mary More wrote:

Subject: deadbeat dads.

The header of your e-mail messages identified the subject as being that you need my help, but, as your message shows, that is not truly what your message is all about.

I am writing to you for assistance in a matter that relates to my children.  I am a single mother of two teenage daughters that I am in custody of.   I have been separated form my husband for the past 5 years and am now divorced.  During this time I have not received any financial support from him in order to help provide for his two girls.

I am not able to direct you to a source of help because you did not tell me which Province you are located in.  I could look that up but would have no guarantee that I would be right.  You are in a better position to determine and identify that.

Why is Canada letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions.

Perhaps the father of your children is a dead-beat dad, but I would leave the determining of that to the courts.  Even the worst judge would make at least a pretense of listening to both sides of a dispute before he decides where between the two sides the truth may is.  I have not heard anything from the other side in the argument.

The fact that you label your ex-husband a dead-beat dad does not look well.  Did he leave on his own volition, or did you kick him out?

That you allege that Canada has a policy of “letting dead beat dads walk freely without having any consequences for their actions” does not look good either.  The reality of that is that your accusation is not founded on facts.  The statistics on that do not support your accusation.  Moreover, my experiences as someone who has been active for decades in the field of child-support issues don’t support your accusation either.

The reality of those circumstances is that non-custodial fathers are more like than separated non-custodial mothers to pay child support, to pay much more child support and far less likely to default on such payments.  Furthermore, such fathers who default on child-support payments are far more likely than defaulting mothers to be prosecuted and to have to cope with and suffer from draconian enforcement measures.

Is it fair that one parent can walkout without taking any responsibilities providing for his kids?  Is it fair that all the burden of raising kids falls on one parent?

Court hearings ostensibly determine what is fair in such matters.  Unfortunately, such court hearings are seldom fair to fathers.  In the vast majority of divorces the courts grant women the kids, car, cash and castle and send the father packing, often with nothing more than a set of underwear, a toothbrush and a razor.

In the United States many deadbeat dads have their passport revoked, have their driver’s license suspended……. Why doesn’t Canada take drastic measures when it comes to deadbeat dads.

You correctly deem the common practice of depriving fathers who default on child support to be drastic, which of course it is.  How do you figure anyone is more likely to be able to make child-support payments when his constitutional right to free movement has been restricted?  Someone without a driver’s licence is not likely to be able to acquire any jobs that require a valid driver’s licence.  Moreover, he quite likely will be severely handicapped in travelling to a job for which he does not even require a driver’s licence but cannot travel to when no public transportation is available to help him get there.

Moreover, it is not only driver’s licences and passports of fathers defaulting with child support payments that are suspended,  All government-issued licences of defaulting fathers are suspended, which of course severely curtails their ability to earn a living.  Do you feel that those suspensions can possibly be any good for the affected children?

Jake Eke is in a new relationship with a divorced woman Liz Tryhard that has two kids, he is leading a normal life and supports her  kids and helps her renovate the house…..Doesn’t his own kids deserve a dad? Why can’t he help support his own kids? Doesn’t his kids have rights? Is it fair that he has neglected his own kids?

I assume, although you do not directly or indirectly state so, that Jake Eke is the father of the children you had with him.

You sure checked him out good, right?  Is it a criminal offence for him to have entered a relationship with a divorced woman who has children?

I wonder whether he thinks that he is living a normal life.  Is it normal for all men to form relationships with divorced women who have children by other men, after their ex-wives most likely kicked them out?

You told me that he can’t support his own kids because he is considered to be disabled.  If you feel that to be a false and fraudulent claim, telling me about it will not do you or anyone else much good.  Tell the judge in your case.  As they say, you will have to prove that in a court of law.

1) Mr. Eke has declared that he is sick and unable to provide.  If that is the case why isn’t he forced to fill up disability papers and get help from the government .

It is a little inconsistent on your part to call him first a dead beat dad and then to call him Mr.  Do you always do that so as to make sure that the recipients of your complaints about him are first put into the right frame of mind?

I do not know where Mr. Eke lives or whether it is possible for him to make false claims where he lives about disabilities that prevent him from earning a living.  If you are sure that he has engaged in an act of defrauding his government, you should perhaps consider pursuing criminal charges.

2) I am well aware that Mr. Eke is working in the renovation business and gets paid cash.  He keeps claiming that he is building his cliental slowly and that business is slow……….why isn’t he forced to get another job and provide for his kids?????

It amazes me to read how much you know about the man.  Yet you fail to consider the realities of the current state of the economy.  Canada is suffering under the same depression that has the US in its grips.  There is little money available for housing construction.  There is much competition for jobs in the construction trade, and money for home renovations is even harder to come by than is the case with money for new construction jobs.

Getting paid cash for work done is what many men do who have been driven into the underground economy to be able to eke out a living.

Did you not know any of those things before you decided to kick him out?

His daughter who is 17 of age has a job as a bus girl and makes minimum wage, why can’t he work?????

Nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong with this picture??????

I don’t know. You tell me.

I am a kindergarten teacher in a private school, my pay cheque is not enough so after I am done my job at 3 everyday I continue to my second job from 4-7 and than work on weekends, if I can be responsible why can’t he????????

Is being a kindergarten teacher a well-paying job?  If not, do you have a low-paying job because you chose to have it for convenience and not for economic considerations?  Were you forced into taking your job?

If you need a better-paying job, why don’t you get one?  If you expect that the father of your children be forced into getting another job to be able to pay for his kids, why does that not apply to you?

I have to do 3 jobs, get a line of credit, take a loan from the bank refinance my mortgage, seek help from my mom who is living on her pension and be the sole provider for those girls.

So, you indicate that you like to do low-paying jobs, live on credit, and have even your mother support you.  Has your mother not done enough for you yet?

Was being the sole provider for “those girls” your choice?

You have without a doubt some serious problems with matching your income to your expenses.  From what you explained, it appears that your debts are steadily and perhaps even quickly increasing.  The first and most important objective for successful debt management is to have a lot of income left at the end of the month, rather than having a lot of month left at the end of the money.

One way by which you can make a start with that is to cut back on a few things, such as those that you expect your ex-husband to cut back on.  Cancel your subscription to cable TV, cancel your cell phone and cut out all other things that are not absolutely necessary to survival, including the use of your car (sell it) and other such luxuries.

If that is not sufficient to bring your expenses into affordable limits, consider what capital assets you can sell.  If it is cheaper to rent an apartment than to make mortgage payments, you should go for the cheaper alternative.  You have a great advantage in that respect.  No one will expect you to live in a cardboard box under a bridge.  Our society does not expect that from women, while that expectation is at times the only one left for men who have all of their licences revoked.

I did not bring these children to the world by myself,

I hope not.  That would have been a miracle.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to become a father or a mother, while to be a father or a mother is a much more difficult task.  The burden of that is much lightened by sharing it.

It is about time that the government takes action and goes after those dead beat dads who are basically getting away with murder.

The government has done quite a bit to help out women already.  Women live on average six more years (in the US) and 7.2 more years (in Canada) than men do.  Now you want to have your ex prosecuted for murder yet?

I am frustrated at the legal system in the pursuit of this basic right for child support.   I have exhausted my financial capabilities in hiring lawyers to pursue him and have contacted the child support office in Montreal who have indicated that they have no recourse because of his lack of declared income.  So far my experience has been a series of “road blocks” and I am entirely exhausted.

Sorry, but that is pretty much the way it is.  If there is no income, then there is nothing to declare or to confiscate.

It will be up to you to prove in court that his claim to be disabled is fraudulent.  However, even if you should be able to prove that, what do you expect will happen?  Should he go to jail?  Do you think that will ensure that his child support payments can be made?

My ex-spouse is a home renovator and thus much of his work is paid in cash.  The amount of declared income is unknown

You already stated all of that.

since he has not filed an income tax return in the past few years.  I am puzzled at how the governmental system has neglected to look into this case to allow a citizen to neglect his legal obligations toward his family and government.  Why don’t we have any rights?

You told me that the government already looked into his case.  The problem is that you are not happy with what the government found.  However, if you want the father of your children to go to jail, and if you are absolutely sure of your allegations about doing work for cash under the table, then talk to the government and insist they they prosecute him for defrauding the government and for income-tax evasion.  Both are crimes that would warrant incarceration, but you have to prove them in court.  If you fail to prove your case, then you are potentially liable to be convicted of slander and libel.

However, the government has done a lot for women in that respect.  Women can commit the crimes of slander and libel with impunity.

Hoping to hear from you

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I will keep trying until my voice his heard and things will change.  It is so unfair.

Mary More

I will post your help request and my responses to Dads & Things. It is our policy to not show the real names of the warring parties in such a case.

Other than that, I tried to offer some advice where I deemed it possible and necessary to give advice.  Unfortunately, you did not actually ask for specific help, but you railed against your ex, you slandered him, you slandered the Government of the Province of Quebec, the Federal Government of Canada, all of Canadian non-custodial fathers, and you vented your frustration.

It seems that all the help you wanted was to have someone listen to you.  I have done that and hope it will make you feel better.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
Fathers for Life
Dads & Things

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Violence by Proxy, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

FACTS EVERY ONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT DESERTION

September 7, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Guest post by Roger Eldridge, National Mens Council of Ireland

Note by F4L:  I am not a legal expert in such matters, but, having gone through the experience of being deserted, some years ago, I am quite confident that what Roger describes applies as well in Canada and perhaps also in other nations.

Roger has told it well, and it should be shown to as many people as possible. –Walter

It is very clear when discussing their difficulties with callers to our help-line that many - men in particular - are very confused about the difference between separation and desertion. This is not their fault as the legal profession have made it their business to eliminate the word and concept of “desertion” from all family law proceedings. I sat in with a member of our Family Integrity and Marriage Reconciliation (FIRM) Self-Help Group when he went to discuss with his solicitor what he could do. Despite the facts supporting it, whenever he described himself as being “deserted” his own solicitor got very cross with him and told him that the judge would be very angry if he ever said anything like that in court. When he tried to talk about it further his solicitor told him that she will not represent him if he ever used the word again!

Hopefully the information given below which has been taken directly from three different legal sources will clear people’s heads and stop them mistakenly believing they are “separated” when really they are “deserted”.

The reason why solicitors create this confusion is because they have been assisting spouses who are the deserters to profit at the expense of the actual deserted spouse for the past thirty years. They tell the deserted spouse that the other spouse - the actual deserter - is entitled to separate and tell them that they should just accept that they are now “separated” and deal with it. By doing this the deserted spouse loses everything and especially is seen to be going along with the breakdown of the marriage instead of getting help to reconcile it.

Some of the most important aspects of family law are the provisions for maintenance. It is a duty of spouses to maintain the family home and the other spouse and children living there. If one of the spouses deserts the family they are still held to this duty and are forced to pay money for the maintenance of the deserted household. Logically and in the statute there is a bar to a deserter receiving such maintenance.

However the law is being operated by solicitors so that the husband is always the one ordered to pay maintenance to his wife regardless of who is guilty of desertion. This creates an ever lengthening queue of wives outside solicitors’ offices who are led to believe that they can just walk out on their marriage and still be kept in the style (or better!) they were when they were acting as a wife in the home. They are told to ensure they keep the kids with them and refuse to let them stay at home even though the law presumes that the children should be at home. This has been used for many years as a sort of “gray area” which is used to justify the “legitimise” the deserter and get money from the deserted spouse for the maintenance of the children. Solicitors advise their deserted clients to pay this money even though it is against their best interests and those of the children in the long run.

In all of this confusion and corruption of the law any chance of a reconciliation of the family is buried in anger and injustice. This has to stop.

Please pass the information below to anyone you know who is having problems in their family (i.e. by now almost everyone!) and let them know that we are available to talk to them and assist them to resist the worst practices of the courts. This is the necessary first step before moving on to the more important one of helping them to reconcile their marriage. When leaving a marriage doesn’t bring instant rewards it gives people a chance to rethink their plans. It is this critical period of time that needs to be seized upon if we are ever to stop the wanton dismemberment of families and destruction of society.

God bless,  Roger Eldridge

Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland

Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland

National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Website: www.family-men.com Email: familymen@eircom.net

Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138, 00353 (0) 83-3330256

******

http://www.the-divorce-directory.com/article_desertion.html

DESERTION

Desertion, known in some states as abandonment, is considered grounds for divorce in states that have fault divorces. There are two types of desertion, actual desertion and constructive desertion. Both types of desertion must be continuous and uninterrupted for a specific period of time between one and five years depending on the state.

The most obvious situation which would constitute desertion is when one spouse leaves without a trace, never comes back and never again makes contact. However, there are other situations which constitute desertion.

Desertion vs. separation: Desertion is not the same as separation. In a separation both spouses consent to living apart. Desertion only occurs when one spouse does not consent to the separation.

The necessary elements to establish desertion include:

• No longer living in the same residence

• No longer having sexual relations

• Deserting spouse intends to end the marriage

• Deserting spouse was not justified in leaving the residence

• Deserted spouse did not consent to the desertion • Desertion has been continuous and uninterrupted for the amount of time designated by law in your state

Actual desertion vs. constructive desertion

In actual desertion the deserting spouse leave the home. Constructive desertion occurs when the deserted spouse leaves due to unbearable conditions at home caused by the other spouse. Combined with the above elements of desertion, depending on the state, conditions for constructive desertion can include:

• Physical abuse

• Mental cruelty

• Adultery

• Nonsupport

• Unjustified refusal to have sexual relations for a significant period of time

• Knowing transmission of a venereal disease

Couples contemplating divorce should be cautious about moving out of the residence in a manner which can be claimed as desertion. To avoid a claim of desertion both parties must agree to the separation and should provide each other with contact information.

The desertion period must be continuous and uninterrupted. One night spent under the same roof or one meeting for sexual relations can be considered an interruption in the desertion period, and the required length of time would start over after that date.

Exceptions

Unintentional abandonment is not considered desertion. If a spouse goes missing for a specified period of time, and efforts to find the spouse are unfruitful, the abandoned spouse may obtain a divorce. However, situations such as military personnel missing in action do not constitute desertion.

If you are facing or contemplating divorce, have been forced out of your home or have been abandoned by your spouse, contact an experienced divorce attorney today.

******

Desertion Grounds

Desertion must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.  There are two main elements to prove to establish abandonment/desertion grounds for divorce; (1) the actual breaking off of the matrimonial cohabitation (abandoning the usual marital duties, not just sexual intercourse must be established), and (2) the intent to desert the marriage.

The breaking off of matrimonial cohabitation means that the couple must actually have separate addresses, and not just maintain separate sleeping arrangements.  Ceasing to engage in sexual intercourse, even without just cause, does not constitute desertion.  But where there is a significant abandonment of marital duties, which results in practical destruction of home life, a party may be guilty of desertion.

The second element to establish abandonment/desertion is the intent to desert the marriage. The desire to separate is not necessarily synonymous with the intent to desert the marriage. Where the parties separate by “mutual consent,” neither party has established grounds for desertion.  If the person deserting cannot legally justify the desertion, then proof of the actual breaking off of the matrimonial relationship with the intent to desert entitles the other spouse to a divorce.

“Constructive desertion” involves actions or conduct resulting in the other spouse’s forced separation.  To prove constructive desertion, the spouse leaving the home must prove that the misconduct by the spouse remaining in the home constitutes grounds for divorce. Traditionally, this spouse must show that the remaining spouse conducted himself/herself in such a manner as to provoke the leaving.

It should be noted that excessive alcohol consumption not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute constructive desertion, nor is demanding that a spouse leave is not constructive desertion. Generally speaking, a spouse is not justified in leaving the other just because there has been a gradual breakdown in the marital relationship or because the parties are unable to live together in peace and harmony. The party claiming justification for leaving has the burden of proving it, unless the justification appears from the testimony given by the other party.

Defenses to desertion include (1) agreement, (2) recrimination, (3) justification, (4) pending divorce case, or (5) relocation of spouse.

Agreement:  When the separation is by consent or agreement, or is acquiesced to by the other spouse, there is a presumption that the separation by consent continues until a spouse withdraws the consent and offers to resume the cohabitation.  Refusal without justification will give rise to desertion.

Recrimination:  Where the deserted party as well as the deserting party is guilty of a fault ground, the deserted party is barred from a divorce on the grounds of the desertion.

Justification:  Where there is violence, even though the acts do not amount to cruelty, there may be a sufficient basis to constitute a fault ground for divorce.

Pending divorce case:  A spouse is not guilty of desertion where the leaving takes place after the divorce case has been instituted and during the pendency of the case.

Relocation of spouse:  A spouse is no longer expected to follow the other spouse’s change of abode, and the refusal to follow to relocate is not desertion.

******

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/desertion

DESERTION

The act by which a person abandons and forsakes, without justification, a condition of public, social, or family life, renouncing its responsibilities and evading its duties. A willful Abandonment of an employment or duty in violation of a legal or moral obligation.

Criminal desertion is a husband’s or wife’s abandonment or willful failure without Just Cause to provide for the care, protection, or support of a spouse who is in ill health or necessitous circumstances.

Desertion, which is called abandonment in some statutes, is a divorce ground in a majority of states. Most statutes mandate that the abandonment continue for a certain period of time before a divorce action may be commenced. The length of this period varies between one and five years; it is most commonly one year. The period of separation must be continuous and uninterrupted. In addition, proof that the departed spouse left without the consent of the other spouse is required in most states.

Ordinarily, proof of desertion is a clear-cut factual matter. Courts generally require evidence that the departure was voluntary and that the deserted husband or wife in no way provoked or agreed to the abandonment. Constructive desertion occurs when one party makes life so intolerable for his or her spouse that the spouse has no real choice but to leave the marital home. For an individual to have legal justification for departing, it is often required that the spouse act so wrongfully as to constitute grounds for divorce. For example, a wife might leave her husband if she finds that he is guilty of Adultery.

In desertion cases, it is not necessary to prove the emotional state of the abandoning spouse, but only the intent to break off matrimonial ties with no animus revertendi, the intention to return.

Mere separation does not constitute desertion if a husband and wife agree that they cannot cohabit harmoniously. Sexual relations between the parties must be totally severed during the period of separation. If two people live apart from one another but meet on a regular basis for sex, this does not constitute desertion. State law dictates whether or not an infrequent meeting for sexual relations amounts to an interruption of the period required for desertion. Some statutes provide that an occasional act of sexual intercourse terminates the period only if the husband and wife are attempting reconciliation.

Unintentional abandonment is not desertion. For example, if a man is missing in action while serving in the Armed Services, his wife may not obtain a divorce on desertion grounds since her spouse did not intend to leave his family and flee the marital relationship. The common law allows an individual to presume that a spouse is dead if the spouse is unexplainably absent for a seven-year period. If the spouse returns at any time, the marriage remains intact under common law.

Laws that embody the Enoch Arden Doctrine grant a divorce if evidence establishes that an individual’s spouse has vanished and cannot be found through diligent efforts. A particular period of time must elapse. Sometimes, if conditions evidencing death can be exhibited, a divorce may be granted prior to the expiration of the time specified by law.

In some jurisdictions, the law is stringent regarding divorce grounds. In such instances, an Enoch Arden decree might be labeled a dissolution of the marriage rather than a divorce.

Upon the granting of an Enoch Arden decree, the marriage is terminated regardless of whether or not the absent spouse returns. Generally, the court provides that the plaintiff must show precisely what has been done to locate the missing person. Efforts to find the absent spouse might include inquiries made to friends or relatives to determine if they have had contact with the missing spouse, or checking public records for such documents as a marriage license, death certificate, tax returns, or application for Social Security in locations where the individual is known to have resided.

Desertion is frequently coupled with non-support, which is a failure to provide monetary resources for those to whom such an obligation is due. Nonsupport is a crime in a majority of states but prosecutions are uncommon.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
All rights reserved.

desertion n. the act of abandoning, particularly leaving one’s spouse and/or children without an intent to return. In desertion cases it is often expected that a deserter who is the family breadwinner may not intend to support the family he/she left. Such conduct is less significant legally in the present era of no-fault divorce and standardized rights to child support and alimony (spousal support). Desertion can influence a court in determining visitation, custody and other post-marital issues.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.
All Right reserved.

desertion noun abandonment, abandonment of allegiance, abjuration, absence without leave, act of forsaking, apostasy, AWOL, defection, departure, derelictio, disloyalty, flight, forsaking, forswearing, leaving, mutiny,quitting, recreancy, renouncement, renunciation, repudiation, resignation, secession, unlawful departure, willful abandonment

Associated concepts: constructive desertion, willful desertion

See also: absence, dereliction, disloyalty, flight, infidelity, revolt, schism, sedition

Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E.
Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.
Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

DESERTION, torts. The act by which a man abandons his wife and children, or either of them.
2. On proof of desertion, the courts possess the power to grant the ‘Wife, or such children as have been deserted, alimony (q.v.)

DESERTION, MALICIOUS. The act of a husband or wife, in leaving a consort, without just cause, for the purpose of causing a perpetual separation. Vide Abandonment, malicious.

A Law Dictionary,
Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

******

“It might be said that it is perverse for a divorce lawyer and family court judge to be espousing laws and policies which will reduce family breakdown, and with it the need for such services. Like most family lawyers, I have seen at first hand too many of the consequences of family breakdown and too many consequences of the impact on children. If one result of these proposed reforms is less need for divorce lawyers then most in society will rejoice!”

CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD

David Hodson,
Chairman of the Family Law Review,
Centre for Social Justice

Posted in Civil Rights, Child Support, Maternal Rights, Parental Alienation, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

Judge dismisses Lloyd EPO

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Judge dismisses Lloyd emergency protective order (EPO), due to the ex-wife having made false allegations, but as of now no decision has been made as to which of the two parents will have custody of the child at the core of the dispute.  That, according to the judge in Fleming County District Court, is up to the circuit court to decide.

The Ledger Independent
2 September 2010

Judge dismisses Lloyd EPO
By Misty Maynard, Staff Writer Ledger Independent

FLEMINGSBURG - Questions concerning custody of a daughter linger, but an emergency protective order secured by Fleming County Hospital Chief Executive Officer Davie Lloyd against ex-husband Brett Lloyd was dismissed during a hearing Thursday in Fleming County District Court….

During the EPO hearing, Hill pressed the judge for a ruling as to whether Brett Lloyd could secure the child, citing an order from the Montana First Judicial District Court that amended the parenting plan established at the time of the couple’s divorce. However, Probst said the issue of custody should be addressed in circuit court.

“Where it goes, I don’t control,” he said.

The original parenting plan established in 2004 allowed Brett Lloyd visitation every other weekend and for two weeks in the summer, as well as on alternating holidays. The new parenting plan, based on the new Montana ruling, established that the child should reside with Brett Lloyd, “subject to Davie’s parenting time, which shall be supervised and in the state of Montana.”

The new plan requires Davie Lloyd to have supervision during visitation because she “deliberately and maliciously” interfered with her ex-husband’s parental rights.

“Further, Davie is considered a ‘flight risk,’ having moved the minor child from one state to another and refusing to inform Brett of her physical location,” according to the plan….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Child Abduction, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Capitol Weekly (U.S.A.)
2 September 2010

Women claim tribes won’t enforce child support
By Malcolm Maclachlan

When Christina Brown got together with her soon-to-be ex-husband in the early 1990s, they were poor. But he’s a member of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. When the tribe’s casino opened up a few years later, the checks started rolling in, around $20,000 a month. They moved out of their mobile home into a big house. Nice cars and a 34-foot Fleetwood motor home followed.

After what she described as a worsening domestic situation, she left him in 2007. Brown, who noted that she once had a drug problem, said she’s been clean for years now.

But in other ways, her present looks a lot like her past. She’s on welfare and food stamps, living with her mother in a two-bedroom house, and running four payments behind on her car.

And there’s another crucial difference: she’s responsible for the children.  She has five over all — one before her husband, three with him and one after. The three youngest live with her, including two from her husband, but she says he hasn’t paid child support in years, despite the fact that he still gets thousands of dollars a month from the tribe.

“The court ordered him to make all these payments,” Brown said. “But I couldn’t garnish them.”….

“I didn’t mean for it to happen this way,” Brown said. “Trust me. I would have never had kids if I knew I was going to go this way. I would have gone straight education.”….(Full Story)

__________

Given that being a welfare mom as a career choice did not work out well for Christina Brown,  why does she not just give custody of her children to their respective fathers?  It looks as if at least two of her children would certainly be substantially better off.

She can then still pursue a career in education.  She is still young enough for that.  People have done it when they were in their seventies.  Perhaps it will not even cost her a dime to do so if things are similar to the way they are in Canada in that respect.  Status natives in Canada can obtain university degrees for free, with the government footing the bill.  They will not be required to run up the sometimes horrendous debts in doing so that normal mortals must labour under.

Mind you, it takes work to obtain a degree, and then it takes more work to earn a living, but, if the “government” pays for the degree, why not?   It is good for the self-esteem.

Posted in Child Support, Maternal Rights, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

Mother sues son she abandoned

July 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

This is outrageous!

Mother sues son she abandoned

B.C. woman, 71, seeks support from children under archaic statute

By Denise Ryan, Postmedia News July 25, 2010

The Edmonton Journal

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn’t want him anymore.

Ken’s father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province’s Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking her second-youngest son, Darryl, with her.

Ken was left behind.

Ken had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas, lucky to pick up some shifts at the local gas station to make a buck….

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Shirley Anderson, now 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case dragged on for years, but the August hearing should complete it….

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Mother+sues+abandoned/3320560/story.html#ixzz0uhwMlHuW

Something is amiss in this case.  Ken Anderson should have launched a counter-suit to claim compensation for damages caused by the criminal act of child-abandonment by his mother.  That could truly make some lawyers happy.  They would be able to reap at least twice the profits they stand to gain from this case.

As it stands right now, who can  blame the mother for merely seeking with impunity what is rightfully hers: to be rewarded by her victims for the crimes she committed against them.  Of course, if it weren’t for ruthless lawyers who stand to profit from such cases, Shirley Anderson’s gold-digging would never have come close to the judicial arena.

Posted in Child Abuse, Violence by Proxy, Maternal Rights, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 3 Comments »