child-custody-advocacy

Reform of Family Courts Will Bring Overdue Change

Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:21:52 GMT

Reform of Family Courts Will Bring Overdue Change

New Orleans, LA — For many in Louisiana, justice in family court, where countless personal and emotional battles unfold, is elusive, especially for victims of abuse as there are various pathways for a malicious parent to potentially weaponize the judicial process. But help is on the way starting August 1, with HB236 taking effect.

Authored by the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI) and sponsored by Rep. Dixon McMakin, R, Baton Rouge, HB236, incorporated with provisions from HB787 , focuses on evidence in child custody cases.

This legislation requires a petitioning parent to show “good cause” to initiate child custody proceedings and clearly states that a family court judge is not required to order a child custody evaluation. If ordered, only a licensed professional adhering to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts' guidelines can conduct the evaluation and their report findings must be “grounded in the methods and procedures of science.” And most significantly, a child custody report should not be given more weight than any other form of evidence.

The "best interest of the child" standard was created with noble intentions but has become an umbrella for family court judges to exercise unchecked discretion, often at the expense of the very children it aims to protect. This standard permits judges to bypass the strict scrutiny requirements that safeguard the constitutional right to parent, while simultaneously denying an aggrieved parent the opportunity to seek justice in higher courts. The entrenched deference afforded to family court judges coupled with the vast discretion associated with the best interest of the child standard often results in higher courts upholding lower court rulings, regardless of probable misjudgments and unjust outcomes- leaving parents without a viable path forward.

The commitment of the Louisiana Legislature to uphold constitutional principles, protect the parent-child bond, and prevent abuse disguised as parental conflict is a shining example of public service at its best. This legislative victory is not just a win for disheartened parents; it represents a transformative shift towards fairness and integrity in the judicial process.

Learn more about the Institute for Child Custody Advocacy at childcustodyadvocacy.org .

Note: A shortened version was published in The Advocate.

###

Louisiana Legislature Enacts HB236 to Enhance Child Custody Proceedings

Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:53:06 GMT

Louisiana Legislature Enacts HB236 to Enhance Child Custody Proceedings

New Orleans, LA — In the heart of our justice system lies the family court, where the most personal and emotionally charged battles unfold. For many in Louisiana, this court has become a battlefield where justice is elusive, especially for victims of abuse.

When the family court system failed to honor the covenant between the constitution and its citizens, Louisiana legislators were called to action. HB236 was their response. Authored by the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI) and championed by Representative Dixon McMakin, HB236 is a lifeline for those caught in the trauma loop of child custody battles.

Key Provisions of HB236:

Court-Ordered Evaluations: Allows courts to order child custody evaluations for good cause shown, conducted by licensed professionals following the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts' Guidelines. This aims to prevent the misuse of the family court system for domestic abuse or personal grievances.
Evaluator Conduct: Prohibits evaluators from undertaking any other roles related to the parties or children involved, ensuring impartiality.
Communication Restrictions: Prohibits ex parte communication with evaluators unless authorized by law or court order, maintaining transparency.
Pretrial Discovery: Grants all parties the right to full pretrial discovery of the evaluator's entire file, including the right to depose the evaluator, promoting thorough and fair examinations.
Rights of Indigent Parents: Ensures that indigent parents can depose, cross-examine, or challenge a court-appointed evaluator without financial discrimination, protecting their rights.
Evaluation Opinions and Testimony: Mandates that all opinion testimony by licensed mental health professionals complies with Code of Evidence Articles 702 (Daubert) and 703. This allows parents to more easily challenge incorrect or inconsistent custody report findings, ensuring that judges uphold their duty of care.

This bill is not just legislation; it should be viewed as a promise to every family that has ever felt powerless and muted. It is a declaration that truth, justice, and fairness should guide our family court system. HB236 is a testament to the power of voices united for change, the relentless advocacy for parents alienated by the system, and underscores the ability of elected officials to demand and deliver justice when it is most needed.

In the words of our founder, "HB236 is more than a law; it is a lifeline. It tells all the struggling families that they matter, that their stories matter, and that they have not been forgotten."

By addressing these critical issues, HB236 not only protects parental rights but also ensures a more equitable process in child custody cases. This bill is a vital step towards safeguarding families and preventing the abuse of the family court system.

###

Monitored Visits and the Removal of Parental Constitutional Rights

Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:12:17 GMT

Introduction

Only in family court can subjective opinions and a game of “he said she said” lead to the removal of one’s parental rights. To add injury to insult courts will often use monitored visits which is often more harmful than no visitation rights at all. Monitored visits give children the perception, regardless of the truth, that their parent is some sort of danger to them. In addition, they operate as a de facto gag order because by “monitoring” the visitation they are also monitoring what the parent says. Regardless of the truth a parent tells their child, that information can be held against them, thus operating to stifle a parent’s free speech when communicating with their child during these visits. Meanwhile, the parent without supervised visits is free say anything they want to their child. This enables this parent to create an even greater negative and false perception of the aggrieved parent.

The removing of a parent’s fundamental right to parent in addition to the restriction of their First Amendment rights is often done in the name of the “best interests of the child.” But by what authority does this arbitrary standard supersede one’s Constitutional rights? Even if there were authority, which there is not, study after study has shown that it is rarely in the best interest of the child to keep them away from one of their parents. Yet, these decisions are made daily in courts throughout this country.

These are significant problems in desperate need for some viable solutions. We need alternatives to the “best interest of the child” standard. This is made especially obvious when it leads to stripping parents of their fundamental rights are subjecting them to harmful restrictions such as monitored visits. In addition to a new standard, we need a higher level of scrutiny. Beyond that, considering the number of parties effectively imprisoned in their state family court system, we need a federal solution that can be used to provide parties the relief necessary when there is no state solution. These changes are drastic, these changes are bold and, most importantly, these changes are necessary. This paper will explore both the problems and the potential solutions within the current family court system.

Problems

Monitored Visits, without cause, are a Violation of one’s Fundamental Right to Parent

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that, the State shall not “deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law.” As it pertains to family law matters, the Supreme Court has held that this right includes “the right of the individual…to marry, establish a home and bring up children…and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (1)

More explicitly, the Supreme Court has held that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children— is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this [Supreme] Court…It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents…” (2) When a court involves itself in this fundamental right it is, essentially, overriding the parents ability to determine what is in the best interests of the child. When a family court strips a parent of custodial rights and forces them to attend monitored visits, they have directly inserted themselves into a parent’s fundamental liberty interests. This is beyond micromanaging two parents’ joint custody schedule. By requiring monitored visits, the state is directly inserting itself into the family dynamic. Not only are they inserting themselves, but they are also reenforcing a perception on the aggrieved parent that has been repeated by the co-parent. As a result, monitored visits should only be issued in the direst of situations. Namely, situations in which there is a serious threat of physical or emotional harm. Otherwise, monitored visits without cause, are detrimental to the parent-child relationship and be considered nothing less than a violation of a parent’s fundamental Constitutional rights.

Monitored Visits are a de facto violation of a Parent’s First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment holds that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (3) This right extends to any state laws or the application thereof. So how do monitored visits infringe on one’s free speech rights? Well, let’s look at how we might have gotten to this point. One parent has had every aspect of their parental rights stripped away from them. The court, for whatever reason, has accepted one party’s subjective evidence over the others. This could be based on bias or numerous other factors. Regardless, the only opportunity the parent has to spend time with their children is in the presence of a court appointed monitor. The children have already been tainted by the other parent, as well as the court system. However, the aggrieved parent is prohibited from providing their side of the story to the children. The court system has already aligned with the other parent. You can be sure, that any attempt to exercise free speech during these monitored visits will not be free at all but will come with a cost. Certainly, it has the potential of having a further negative impact on their attempt to regain their Constitutional right to the custody of their children. As a result, during these monitored visits, an aggrieved parent is left with no choice but to keep quiet and let their children continue to believe whatever the other parent has been telling them during their unsupervised time with their children.

So, how do monitored visits come about? Most states have laws in place that designate specific reasons when the court has to take the drastic decision to monitor a parent’s visitation with their child. For instance, Louisiana places these restrictions on visitations when there is an issue of violence, domestic abuse, or sexual abuse. Thus, a court in Louisiana is justified in having monitored visits when there is evidence that one of these issues has arisen. The problem is family courts continually enforce monitored visits without any evidence of this type of abuse or violence occurring. Without any substantive evidence, such as a police filing or protective order, courts have made the drastic decision to impose supervised visitation on a parent. You might ask, by what grounds can a judge take such drastic action? But it happens all the time. And when this happens the aggrieved party is likely aware that those monitored visits may be nothing more than a pretense to catch them saying something they can use against them to further strip their custodial and parental rights. The result ends up being, the aggrieved parent is forced to keep quiet if they want to see their kids and, if not, even monitored visits will be taken away. While the parent knows that keeping quiet will just perpetuate the fraud of the other parent, they also know that speaking about it at a monitored visit will likely be held against them. As a result, monitored visits of these kind lead to a de facto violation of the parent’s first amendment rights.

A court order reducing, changing, or eliminating a parent’s custody or visitation rights because of a parent’s speech, is a violation of one’s First Amendment right. In a monitored visitation situation, a court may use the rationale that it is not in the best interest of the child to hear the aggrieved parent tell them their side of the story. The use of this subjective standard is than used as a means to stifle one’s First Amendment Rights. In family courts this can be done on a whim, without even a heightened showing of harm from the parent’s speech. This is yet another case in the family court system where state law and the subjective decision of judge’s trump a Constitutional right. Yet, another reason for massive reform in the family court system.

Monitored Visits (and other parental limitations) are almost never in the Best Interest of the Child

The argument that family court’s make is that their decision in the best interests of the child. Putting aside the fact that Judges are not omniscient, it has been shown that this is usually not the case when the result is the child being alienated from one parent. It has been clearly shown that when children are deprived of time with one of their parents, it leads to a detrimental effect to many aspects of their life. This can lead to emotional, physical, and behavioral problems and can be seen in various measures of their life including academic endeavors, depression, drug abuse and other health issues. Children that have both of their natural parents in their lives have better overall outcomes in life. These reasons show that when the “best interests of the child” standard is used to curtail a parent’s right it is usually NOT in the best interests of the child. Courts are getting it wrong. Without clear and convincing evidence of harm to the child, courts micromanaging of parental rights is causing more harm than good. Its defeating the very purpose this inadequate and subjective standard was designed for.

Trial courts are ignoring or failing to take into consideration the actual harm these decisions are having on the children. By hiding behind this standard, courts are making decisions that are exacerbating the family relationship. What’s worse, courts are protected from any meaningful review or accountability by simply stating the magic words, that the decision is in “the best interests of the child.” But courts are not perfect nor are they always right. They wield a great power, and the true consequences are borne by the aggrieved parent and the children that have now had a relationship with one of their parents severed, maybe permanently.

The “Best Interests of the Child” Standard is not Greater than Constitutional Rights as a Parent

Speaking of the Best Interests of the Child Standard, since when does this standard exceed rights explicitly set forth by the United States Constitution? When looking at the role the law has played in a parents’ fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children, it appears that the State’s power in domestic matters has obfuscated the protections and rights set forth in the Constitution. When a court takes away a parent’s right to take care of their children the court is placing their subjective analysis of a child’s best interest above the objective constitutional right of the parent. However, the correct application is to subordinate these subjective standards, state statutes, rules and regulations below the fundamental rights that were recognized by the United States Constitution and confirmed time and time again by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution even explicitly says so - “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (4) and “... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ....” (5)

The adversarial process, which includes the family court, is a win or lose competition. Parents, and their attorneys, have the sole goal of proving that they should be the winner. In this zero-sum game there is more than one loser. Oftentimes, the greatest loser in this process is the child, who’s “best interest” is just the pretext for announcing a winner and loser.

Solutions

A Better Standard Moving Forward

Parents have a fundamental right to direct the care of their children. This right should not be interfered with unless a parent is objectively proven to be unfit. In fact, courts have held that the Constitution “protects a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter without compelling justification.” (6) The problem is, courts across the country have failed to provide an adequate test to protect a parent’s Constitutional rights. The United States Supreme Court has held, “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (7) This was further bolstered by a more recent case that held, “so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of the parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s child.” (8)

There must be a better standard moving forward. While the “best interests of the child” standard seems noble, it has provided cover for too long to allow judges to overreach into the sacred parent-child dynamic. More to the point, it is not a Constitutional right and due to its vagueness, it’s not even a measurable standard. A failure to have a standard that places a greater priority on the parent and their rights is unconstitutional. There is case after case in the Supreme Court where the rights of parents are considered of the utmost importance. Yet our state courts have no connection between the standards they follow and these Constitutional rights. Instead, they have an unchallenged ability to limit or terminate a parent’s rights using an undefinable and subjective standard.

In Court there are rules of evidence that must be followed. In addition, substantive due process must be afforded when a fundamental right is involved. Consistently, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the interest of parents “in the care, custody and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this court.” (9) The Supreme Court has held that, “in light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” (10) Yet, the best interests of the child standard, and the judge’s ability to make a wide range of impactful decisions under this subjective standard, completely fails to address these Constitutional rights. First, the standard itself is hard to define. Typically, the “best interests of the child” standard has several factors, giving the family court system an incredible amount of flexibility in how they evaluate those factors. Under this standard custody evaluations and biased testimony are sufficient grounds upon which parental rights can be removed. The family court systems overreliance on this subjective standard in a custody dispute ignores the high burden the U.S. Supreme Court has placed on courts when altering parental rights. By seeking cover under this standard, while refusing to consider parental rights, the courts are denying parents of a truly meaningful hearing and, thus, denying them their due process. The Family Court System should view parents as fit until objectively proven otherwise. The default, not the exception, should be the protection of both parent’s constitutional rights. Simply relying on the subjective “best interests of the child” standard completely fails to meet the required legal standard afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

It is not being argued that a parent’s rights should exceed the rights of their children. What is being argued is that the “best interests of the child” standard is impossible to fairly apply, fraught with ambiguities, and is often used to violate a parent’s clear and objective Constitutional rights. When dealing with two parents with equal parental and Constitutional rights, an objective test focusing on the fitness of the parent is what’s needed. Not a system where custody evaluators can offer highly subjective opinions, fraught with personal hostilities and biases, and the judge can then strip away one’s parental rights under the guise that it is in the best interests of the child.

A Higher Level of Scrutiny

Due to the Constitutional rights involved, all custody cases should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny. If we can strip away one’s constitutional parental rights without strict scrutiny than what, if anything, would require strict scrutiny? Strict scrutiny would then apply to any situation in which the court is altering a parent’s rights. For instance, when a court requires monitored visits, not only are they drastically altering the parent-child dynamic, but they are also influencing the child’s perception of the aggrieved parent.

Consistently, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the interest of parents “in the care, custody and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this court.” (11) The Supreme Court has held that, strict scrutiny (or at least an indistinguishable form of heightened scrutiny) should be applied in cases involving a parents fundamental right of custody of their child. (12) Yet, family courts are making life-altering decisions without having to meet these legal standards. Whether it be the custody evaluation, or the hearing itself, family courts are given incredible decision-making authority over one’s family while not being required to adhere to the stringent evidentiary rules or burdens imposed by strict scrutiny. A family court judge’s ability to make these decisions with little to no scrutiny ignores the high burden the U.S. Supreme Court has placed on courts when altering parental rights.

In not applying strict scrutiny, family law courts are conflicting with the Supreme Court and, in some cases, their own legislature. A jurisprudence has developed when, absent some clear abuse of discretion, a family court can strip away a parent’s fundamental rights at a whim. Considering the rights at stake in the family court, measures need to be taken to avoid taking away a parent’s rights without the strictest scrutiny. Consistent with needing a more objective standard, the court also needs a higher threshold when applying any standard that involves such fundamental rights.

The Need for Relief from State Family Court

For many aggrieved parents, as the days turn to months and the months turn to years, the amount of time spent in the same court fighting the same issues can feel defeating. For most, it is akin to a prison sentence where the court is the prison, and the Judge is the warden. The aggrieved parent suffers repeated violations of their constitutional rights and there is no recourse to put a stop to this cruel and unusual punishment. If the standard doesn’t change and higher scrutiny isn’t enforced there is only one recourse left. That is the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a fundamental tool that has long been protected to ensure individuals are not wrongfully imprisoned. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution holds that “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (13) The United States Supreme Court has long held that the "writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action” and "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.” (14)

This fundamental interest has been expanded over the years to allow individuals to fight against several forms of illegal state action. While the Writ of Habeas Corpus has not yet been applied in the family court system, its long overdue. Having to endure measures such as monitored visits and your child being unjustly stripped away from you, while you wade through an inefficient and unsympathetic family court system is a genuine form of imprisonment. The aggrieved parent is entrapped in a cycle of motions and delayed hearing dates all the while, they are separated from their children or forced to affirm the court’s position by subjecting them to degrading orders such as monitored visits. The very core of a parent’s life is stripped away while the wheels of injustice continue to slowly grind. Instead of protecting a parent’s right and child’s best interest, children are weaponized, and the malicious behaviors of an abusive parent are rewarded instead of punished.

As this kind of behavior continues, unchecked, individuals need a remedy outside the family court system that simply continues to imprison them. That remedy is the federal right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. If granted, the Writ of Habeas Corpus could serve to terminate any order or procedural hindrance in the family court system preventing a parent from the custody of their child. At that point, custody would be immediately returned to both parents equally (effectively ending the imprisonment) until the family court system can provide an equitable solution. This is a necessary tool. Even more necessary if courts refuse to adopt a more objective standard and/or enforce a stricter level of scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Family Court system is broken. Monitored visits are yet another example of this broken system. Monitored visits should only be used in the rarest of occasions and only when it is absolutely necessary to protect a child from harm. However, it seems that family courts are enforcing monitored visits without this basis. Often these monitored visits have a greater detrimental and harmful impact on the parent-child relationship then if there were no visitation rights at all.

Monitored visits violate a parent’s free speech and due process constitutional rights. In addition, they do more harm than good for the child and the family dynamic as a whole. The family court system must do away with the subjective “best interests of the child” standard in favor for a standard that is objective and is designed to protect the Constitutional rights of the parent while simultaneously fostering parent-child relationships instead of severing and destroying them. Absent this, the family court system throughout the United States is in great need of a federal option to protect the Constitutional rights these state courts so often neglect.

1: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) .

2: Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) .

3: U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.

4: U.S. Const. amend. IX.

5: U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

6: Arnold v Bd. of Ed. of Escambia County, 880 F.2d 305, 313 (11th Cir. 1989).

7: Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
8: Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, at 68-9 (2000).

9: Id. at 65-6.

10: Id.

11: T roxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, at 65-6 (2000).

12: Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

13: United States Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.

14: Harris v. Nelson , 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).

Louisiana Legislature Prioritizing Parental Rights

Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:46:32 GMT

Louisiana legislators have recognized the many structural failures within the family court system. In a rare display of bipartisanship and mutual agreement, both chambers of the Louisiana Legislature adopted, identical in intention, resolutions pledging their commitment to protecting the parent-child bond and constitutional right to parent.

Senate Resolution 186 (SR186) and the House Resolution 228 (HR228), both “urge and request the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI) to review (state) laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures related to mental health evaluations used in child custody and visitation proceedings.“ LSLI is a legislative advisory body, housed at LSU, that researches questions of law and then makes recommendations to legislators. This joint resolution crucially expands the scope of inquiry beyond specific credentials for mental health evaluations to the application of legal standards and the parental protections afforded by the constitution.

Notably, these resolutions illuminate the importance of establishing an equitable co-parenting relationship and the role of the child custody evaluation in establishing the co-parenting power dynamics. These resolutions outline that the child custody evaluation should encourage collaborative co-parenting while discouraging approaches that strip parental and custodial rights unless doing so complies with enacted domestic violence laws. Louisiana legislators seem to understand that the relationship between the parents is the primary factor that truly frames childhood experiences and memories.

In a historically bold move, the joint resolution suggests that the child custody evaluator consider all forms of domestic abuse including coercive control, when establishing the co-parenting relationship. All abuse is about power and control, but what makes coercive control different is that it uses strategic trauma to gain an advantage — such as primary physical custody and domiciliary (decision-making) rights in a child custody dispute.

Once empowered by the Court, a malicious co-parent can convert access to the children into a form of cruel currency: denying access as punishment for grievances or granting access as a reward for demonstrating desired behaviors. For the non-designated parent, this power imbalance can perpetuate an abuse cycle, and negatively impact their ability to properly parent their children. The malicious co-parent can then return to that same family court judge requesting more control strategies, such as required mental health therapy with court reports, monitored and limited visitation with their children, drug/alcohol testing based on unsubstantiated claims, and many other conditional and controlling requirements. The Judge often honors such requests from the now designated parent under the “best interest of the child standard.” For the non-designated parent, this constant cycle of hustling for their worth as a person and living in constant judgment of their parental fitness can feel unbearable. For Louisianans, co-parenting dynamics are not easily changed due to the Bergeron standard. Bergeron is the high bar required to change child custody judgments.

These malicious parental behaviors are considered the weaponization of the family court system; it is the cultivation of judicial power to either control or remove a co-parent from the lives of their children.

Thank you, Senator Barrow Peacock (SR186) and Representatives Gregory Miller and Patrick Jefferson (HR228).

Bridget Neal is a Louisianan, who has worked with several international scientific organizations, currently working for CBF Partners at NASA-Stennis.

Neal graduated from Louisiana State University with her bachelor’s degree in 1999 and went on to graduate from Tulane University with her Master’s of Art in Civic and Cultural Management in 2001. She formerly served as the Executive Director of Team Metric and has held several positions at the world’s largest research and scientific complex- the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

Neal has been committed to advocating for change in the family court system since losing access to her children in the Summer of 2021. This occurred after a succession of painful situations predicated on an inaccurate child custody evaluation and a domestic judicial system that does not always enforce the law and does not prioritize protecting the parent-child bond

Family Court Prisoner

Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:52:33 GMT

Where The Wheels of Justice Grind You Down

Many parents are family court prisoners, trapped with no guaranteed release date, and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. When people think of unlawful imprisonment, they tend to think of physical confinement. However, wading through an inefficient and unsympathetic family court system is a form of imprisonment.

A parent cannot move a child custody case to the appeals court or readily move their case to a federal court until a lower family court has ruled. A parent is thus entrapped, often for years, in a cycle of multiple motions and delayed hearing dates. Meanwhile, the wheels of justice are steadily grinding down your spirit, finances, parent-child bond, and constitutional rights.

Moreover, in the family court system, children are functionally treated as personal property. Though children should be treated as the precious gift they are, this practice encourages some parents to act as if their children truly are just another form of their personal property to do with as they please, without negative legal consequences.

Under these conditions, the Family Law toolbox should include the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the frequently connected Writ of Attachment.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is the process by which one can report unlawful detainment or imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the writ is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action,” and should be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.” This fundamental interest has been expanded to allow individuals to fight against physical and non-physical forms of imprisonment.

A Writ of Attachment is a court order to "attach" or seize an asset. In other words, when a parent is not rightly given time with their children that they are legally owed, then a time debt accrues. The aggrieved parent becomes a “creditor” who is legally owed all that lost childhood time. While the Court may not wish to “seize” a child, the Court should seize back the aggrieved parent’s stolen time. Sometimes, a parent is powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when the Court refuses to remediate it.

Parents are routinely and repeatedly forced into the deliberately degrading situation of defending their every word and action, then forced to watch as the Court fails to stop a co-parent from malicious efforts to sever the parent-child bond. Parents who endure these archaic punishments suffer pain that is rarely proportional to any alleged wrongdoing.

Some people believe that hell is not a physical place of fire and brimstone, but rather the absence of God. For many parents, this belief feels quite true, because hell on Earth is living without your children.

Bridget Neal is a Louisianan, who has worked with several international scientific organizations, currently working for CBF Partners at NASA-Stennis.

Family court should protect parent/child relationships

Thu, 26 May 2022 16:42:49 GMT

The following was published in The Advocate as a letter to the editor on May 25, 2022. Read online HERE .

In my favorite book, “The Little Prince,” the overarching theme is adults prioritizing what they perceive as “matters of great consequence,” and failing to see the significance of personal relationships.

That peculiar euphemism perfectly describes family court and its failure to protect the most significant relationship for many people, their parent-child connection. This court failure, then, creates a condition for which it offers no adequate remedy.

Where there is a constitutional right, there must be a remedy, and the U.S. Supreme Court clearly established that parenting is a fundamental right. So, without a remedy, why are family courts allowed to sever the parent-child bond without the required strict scrutiny standards?

While family courts are empowered to impose punishments for fraud upon the court or contempt against the court, these punishments rarely are meted out. That means that a parent seeking justice frequently cannot find enforcement in civil, criminal or domestic law.

Thankfully, Louisiana legislators recognize this moral and legal crisis. State Rep. Patrick Jefferson, D-Homer, is sponsoring House Bill 272 , which “provides for mental health evaluations in divorce and child custody proceedings.”

HB272 defines the credentials of child custody evaluators, promotes unbiased outcomes by prohibiting damaging conduct such as ex parte conversations, and prohibits certain prior relationships which create conflicts of interest. However, this bill is not expansive enough.

Adding a safeguard amendment would prohibit disqualified child custody evaluators from testifying as court experts and require adherence to the approved child custody evaluation guidelines established by the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners.

If family court judges are unable or unwilling to enforce parents’ constitutional rights, then the legislative branch must intervene. The clock is ticking, and while legislators cannot turn back the clock, they can stop the irreparable damage some family courts are causing.

Cover photo via The Advocate: Thank you to Rep. Patrick Jefferson, D-Homer, for carrying HB 272.

The Daubert Standard – Decoding Incompetence and Corruption in Family Court

Thu, 19 May 2022 19:19:36 GMT

The Current Situation

Mental health providers perform one of three primary roles in Family Law: co-parenting therapist, reunification counselor, and child custody evaluator.

Co-parenting therapists and reunification counselors work with parents and children to foster healthy dynamics. The child custody evaluator’s role is different in that their sole purpose is to assist the Judge in deciding child custody outcomes.

In most states, family court judges receive limited mental health or psychology training. Consequently, the Court’s designated mental health professional—the Child Custody Evaluator—becomes the default arbiter.

Thus, the Daubert Standard is used to disqualify inaccurate or demonstrably biased custody evaluators.

The Daubert Standard

Though not commonly used in family court, the Daubert Standard can be used to examine whether a custody evaluator’s conclusions were derived from a scientifically sound methodology, as required under the Ethical Standards of Psychologists .

The Daubert Standard also offers the flexibility to uncover corrupt behavior. Allowing child custody evaluators to receive compensation from one parent for separate “roles” within the same case encourages, enables, and promotes corruption within the Court.

To distinguish between the two, Incompetence can be characterized as unintentional mistakes, while corruption manifests when so-called mistakes favor one party in a case that is paying for the child custody evaluator.

Moreover, the LA Appeals Court, Main vs Main , disqualified a child custody evaluator who held more than one role in a case. The evaluator acted as the co-parenting coordinator and delayed the child custody process. These created conflicts of interest that allowed for unethical ex-parte conversations and biases against the other parent.

The Solution

All Judges are elected to be their Court’s custodian of justice. Yet, many Judges hesitate to rule against the child custody evaluator, so the Daubert Standard offers a narrow pathway to examine the work of child custody evaluators in the midst of a case.

However, the Institute for Child Custody Advocacy is supporting House Bill 272 by Louisiana State Representative Patrick Jefferson which addresses ex-parte conversations and certain existing relationships between the parties; however, we think specific parental rights protections are needed. A safeguard amendment which would protect families by removing disqualified custody evaluators and requiring adherence to the already approved Child Custody Evaluation Guidelines established by the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners .

HB272 with a safeguard amendment gives parents another option to help protect the parent-child bond from an incompetent or corrupt child custody evaluator before getting too deep into their respective cases.

After all, protecting the parent-child bond is the court’s mandate.

Stay engaged with the Institute for Child Custody Advocacy by joining our mailing list.

The First Lie Wins

Sun, 08 May 2022 22:26:26 GMT

Via The Lens

This Mother’s Day, I will not be with my children. I have not heard the voices of my 14-year-old son and his 12-year-old sister or seen their faces in many, many months. Even as my heart breaks, a phrase repeats in my head like a mantra: The first lie wins. We have been living in the family court system for five long years because of that first lie. Our case shows that when one parent weaponizes the family court system through manipulation and money, the children easily become a cruel form of currency. Access to them is given as a reward for exhibiting desired behaviors; and it is easily withheld as a punishment for perceived grievances.

In my case, the first lie was an unfounded, strategic speculation that I had been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder (BPD). BPD is the “go-to” lie for an opposing parent because it encourages self-fulfilling behaviors. Meaning, the more aggressively one fights against the lie, the more the lie appears true. In my case, this poisonous rumor has persisted and seeped into various aspects of my life and our child custody case, even though my mental health records directly contradict the speculation.

It also illustrates the damage of coercive control tactics and the resulting trauma for the alienated parent and the children. All forms of abuse are rooted in power and control, but coercive control is strategic. Tactics include intimidation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, financial blackmail, and other forms of malicious behaviors. Louisiana domestic violence advocates are working to expand the definition of abuse to include non-physical, emotional abuse. But the caveat is that the definition can only be applied when the abuse is used to prevent a victim from escaping a relationship or contacting law enforcement. Many parents cannot escape from an abusive partner. They are imprisoned by fear of losing their children. And that fear is well-founded.

In the family court system, most equitable agreements are made outside the courtroom. Couples who end up in family court usually have at least one party involved who does not wish to settle. As a result, the family court system has become a space that allows the misrepresentation of facts. It rewards devious assassinations of character and requires substantial financial resources to stay in the fight. My experience shows that officers of the court are allowed to make false statements; submit legal filings filled with unsubstantiated claims; and outlandishly assign fault without the worry of formal sanctions or ethical consequences. In other words, the family court system seems to propagate a free-for-all culture of falsehoods where the first lie wins.

As I spend Mother’s Day without my children, I am sending out a single positive message to parents in similar situations: I see you. You are not alone!

Read on The Lens website HERE .

What is the connection between Family Courts and Domestic Abuse?

Thu, 05 May 2022 22:00:45 GMT

Coercive control is a strategic form of trauma.

Studies have shown that when parents allege abusive behavior in their relationship, they often lose custody of their children. Tactics go beyond physical abuse and can include intimidation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, financial blackmail, and malicious parental behaviors, to name a few.

Couples who end up in the Family Court System often have at least one abusive party involved. It is a self-determining process, because, in most cases, with two well-meaning people, an equitable settlement is made before ever entering the Family Court System.

Coercive control is an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation, intimidation, or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten survivors.

Signs of coercive control include:

1. Removal of economic independence

2. Isolation from friends, family, and religion

3. Erosion of self-esteem through words and actions

And if the survivor still has the courage to leave, the abuser could…

4. Try to take children away or turn children against their parent

Domestic violence groups work hard to address the first three abuse factors mentioned above. The Institute for Child Custody Advocacy’s primary purpose is to focus solely on the fourth.

Join the fight to create parental protections around people while they rebuild their professional and personal lives.

The Family Court System should not be weaponized. No one should have to endure the pain of an abusive co-parent willing to turn the children into a cruel form of currency— given as a reward for exhibiting certain desired behaviors and removed as a punishment for perceived (or actual) grievances.