unhappygrammy-When your not allowed to speak, how can you prove anything? (which goes against "Due Process")
Allegations & Proof
To win your case:
Allege all the Facts
Prove all the Facts
Alleging all the necessary facts is like drawing plans for a workshop project. You make a detailed drawing of all the parts and how they fit together. Expert workmen always begin with a plan, then they follow their plan.
Pleadings are your lawsuit blueprint ... whether you're a plaintiff or defendant. Pleadings are the tool you use to allege all the facts that support your case. They give you and the court a clear vision of the final result you seek. In your blueprint pleadings you set out the facts that support the legal basis that requires the court to rule in your favor.
Failure to start with powerful pleadings always results in a weak case and foreseeable failure in court.
Your pleadings' weakness is the other side's strength.
If you're a plaintiff, the blueprint is a "complaint" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your cause(s) of action (what federal courts call a "claim on which the court can grant relief"). You make it clear that the court is obligated to rule in your favor if you prove your alleged facts by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
If you're a defendant, your blueprint is an "affirmative defense" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your defenses. You counter the plaintiff's allegations of fact with allegations of your own. Prove the facts of your affirmative defenses by the greater weight of admissible evidence.
Most pro se people (non-lawyers going to court on their own) draft pleadings as if they were writing a "letter to the judge", weaken their case at the very start by failing to lay out a powerfully complete blueprint for their proofs.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Admissibility of Evidence
unhappygrammy-NH Court's will NOT admit evidence proving innocence of a parent. If the evidence comes into light after the adjudicatory hearing, which happens often due to hidden records, the Judge claims it's too late. The court-appointed puppet won't push for the evidence to be admitted. He claims he work's for the court, not the client.
Admissibility of Evidence
The most critical thing about evidence rules is how they apply to "admit" certain matters to be considered by the court and limit or exclude other matters.
This first classification of evidence rules, therefore, deals with admissibility.
A witness statement, for example, might tend to prove or disprove some of the issues in controversy (i.e., it might be "relevant" to the outcome of your case) and yet be inadmissible for one or more reasons. Being relevant alone, is not enough. Other factors must be considered before the court can determine if evidence is admissible. Each of these will be covered in detail during this tutorial. Some those factors follow.
Relevance - ability to prove or disprove an issue material to outcome of the case
Credibility - reliability of witness or tangible evidence
Privilege - protection afforded certain kinds of evidence (e.g., attorney-client)
Prejudice - tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time
If a party offers evidence that is not likely to prove or disprove any issue material to the outcome of the case, not worthy of being relied upon as true, protected by a privilege, or likely to cause prejudice that may outweigh its ability to prove or disprove any issue, it should be excluded as inadmissible, and an appropriate objection should be made as soon as possible - preferably before the court hears the evidence.
Unless a matter is admissible, it should never be heard by the court. If it gets in by accident (the too-frequent result of unlawful efforts of parties trying to get away with whatever the judge will allow) the matter should not be considered by the court.
It should have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Of course, once it's in, it's in!
Only admissible evidence should be considered by the court.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
The most critical thing about evidence rules is how they apply to "admit" certain matters to be considered by the court and limit or exclude other matters.
This first classification of evidence rules, therefore, deals with admissibility.
A witness statement, for example, might tend to prove or disprove some of the issues in controversy (i.e., it might be "relevant" to the outcome of your case) and yet be inadmissible for one or more reasons. Being relevant alone, is not enough. Other factors must be considered before the court can determine if evidence is admissible. Each of these will be covered in detail during this tutorial. Some those factors follow.
Relevance - ability to prove or disprove an issue material to outcome of the case
Credibility - reliability of witness or tangible evidence
Privilege - protection afforded certain kinds of evidence (e.g., attorney-client)
Prejudice - tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time
If a party offers evidence that is not likely to prove or disprove any issue material to the outcome of the case, not worthy of being relied upon as true, protected by a privilege, or likely to cause prejudice that may outweigh its ability to prove or disprove any issue, it should be excluded as inadmissible, and an appropriate objection should be made as soon as possible - preferably before the court hears the evidence.
Unless a matter is admissible, it should never be heard by the court. If it gets in by accident (the too-frequent result of unlawful efforts of parties trying to get away with whatever the judge will allow) the matter should not be considered by the court.
It should have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Of course, once it's in, it's in!
Only admissible evidence should be considered by the court.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
What is Hearsay Evidence?
In NH "Hearsay Evidence" is admitted into court at Preliminary hearings of abuse and neglect. Parent's are not given the opportunity to speak. This is how DCYF stole my granddaughter in 2005, after the DCYF Lawyer told the Judge of a false report called in against my son-in-law, which had already been proven false almost two week's before the hearing.She claimed the report was true, even though she already knew it was false. The transcript/CD has been kept from us due to the Lawyer's dirty little secret that she committed perjury in court.We haven't seen my granddaughter since October of 2005 due to the unethical practices of a DCYF Lawyer.
What is Hearsay Evidence?
You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.
It isn't what you think it is.
In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely
Let's start with a simple definition of hearsay.
"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."
Consider the first part of the definition.
What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-of-court statement".
But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as being "in court".
The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what someone else said, but it is what the other person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be questioned under oath by both sides.
If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one of the exceptions).
Now for the interesting second part.
Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?
If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of what it says!
"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-of-court statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true. If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.
Don't let the other side trick you!
You must fully understand hearsay and the hearsay exceptions if you want to win your case.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
What is Hearsay Evidence?
You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.
It isn't what you think it is.
In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely
Let's start with a simple definition of hearsay.
"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."
Consider the first part of the definition.
What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-of-court statement".
But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as being "in court".
The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what someone else said, but it is what the other person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be questioned under oath by both sides.
If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one of the exceptions).
Now for the interesting second part.
Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?
If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of what it says!
"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-of-court statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true. If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.
Don't let the other side trick you!
You must fully understand hearsay and the hearsay exceptions if you want to win your case.
http://nfpcar.org/Legal/Tips/index.htm#What_is_Hearsay_Evidence
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
unhappygrammy-This is an awesome story! A story about a mother and the love of her son, who beat all odd's. A mother and son in this day and age wouldn't stand a chance living the way they did. The state would have stepped in and turned their life into a nightmare. She took care of her son and stood by him. Isn't that what mother's are for?
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
Hard times 'worth it' for new Bolts running back, mother
BY KEVIN ACEE, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.
Ryan Mathews’ mom, Tricia Mathews, never missed any of her son’s football games. Alex Horvath / Bakersfield Californian
There wasn’t room for much in the Mathews home when Ryan Mathews was a baby.
Only the necessities fit in a Cutlass Supreme.
The boy, a few months old, had two cloth diapers. He would wear one of them, while the other dried after his mom washed it.
Tricia Mathews, 16 years old, would get her daily meal in a Riverside soup line. She did odd jobs to pay for her baby’s milk.
The Cutlass, turned so many shades of green by the sun, would be parked in a church parking lot at night. What clothes they had were stored in the trunk. There was drinking water up front, some soap to use when showering in a nearby park.
There was a blanket and a pillow, and mom and son would sleep wrapped up in it and each other.
This story could have gone down a much different path than it has.
“I don’t know why,” Tricia Mathews said. “Maybe there was a bigger plan.”
Maybe it’s coming to fruition now.
Her son, Ryan Mathews, is about to become a millionaire. He’s going to play running back for his favorite team, taking over for his favorite player.
“All the suffering I went through is worth it for this moment for him,” Tricia said, speaking by phone Friday morning. “All those tired nights I wanted to quit but I didn’t, it was worth it to see his face when he picked up that phone.”
That would be the phone to answer the call Thursday night from Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith after the Chargers had made a bold move up in the draft to select Ryan Mathews 12th overall, making him the successor to the iconic LaDainian Tomlinson.
By the time Ryan hung up, Tricia was in tears.
“We made it,” she told her son.
Friday, after his introduction to the San Diego media, Ryan Mathews said, “That’s exactly what it is. We did make it. She’s worked very hard and done everything she can to turn me into the man I am today.”
Tricia also told Ryan that he’s grown up now, that it is his time.
But, in a way, this moment is hers, too.
“I am proud of myself,” she allowed. “I had a lot of people tell me I was doing a horrible job raising my son. I just did what I felt. I raised him from my heart.”
Yes, she worked a lot and sometimes Ryan was left alone “earlier than some people might think is right.” She let him dye his hair blond when he was 8, “because that’s what he wanted to do.” There weren’t a lot of rules in the home, “but he didn’t break any.”
She never missed a football game since he began playing. She made sure Ryan knew he was loved. She worked whatever job could be worked so he could have whatever he needed.
Tricia was in Fresno with Ryan on Thursday. She moved there from Bakersfield when he went to college and moved to Tennessee after this past football season was over.
“I’m going to live my life now,” she said.
Ryan Mathews said he’ll do whatever he can for her.
“She’s the reason we made it,” he said.
The “we” Mathews referred to was his brother, Dante, actually his closest friend since third grade whose mom abandoned him when the boys were about 13. Tricia took the boy in and eventually attained guardianship.
“Several times she could have called it quits,” Ryan Mathews said. “She never did. She’s a real strong woman with a tremendous heart.”
Tricia Mathews spoke matter-of-factly about the startling road she and her son have traveled. She said a few times she didn’t know how or why she made the decisions she did.
“I loved my little baby boy I had,” she said. “I wanted to give him something I didn’t have, and that was a good life.”
She came from a broken family, did not know her father. Her mother, clean 15 years now, was a drug addict at the time Tricia got pregnant.
Ryan’s father, who never married Tricia, left before the baby was born. According to Tricia, he has seen Ryan four times, most recently six years ago. She refused to apply for welfare and has never sought child support.
After a few months living in the car, Tricia simply decided, “This isn’t who I am.”
She sold the Cutlass for $100, used that on a bus ticket and moved in with her grandmother in Tehachapi. She got a job (jobs), saved some money and got an apartment.
Tricia “did a little bit of everything,” including washing dogs. She worked the 6 a.m. shift at a gas station and waitressed in the afternoon. For a while, as a third job, she drove around a landscaping crew on weekends.
She eventually got hired as a wind server operator, working 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in the middle of nowhere.
“All by myself,” she said with a laugh. “I stopped watching scary movies real quick.”
She worked her way up, getting into data analysis before leaving the company after moving to Fresno, though she continued to work.
“I never stopped working,” she said. “I just kept trying to get better in life. … You can either be a victim in life or work hard to get something.”
It rubbed off.
By many accounts a kid without a character blemish, Ryan went through a brief period in high school where he was skipping class. He failed some. He wanted to quit football.
“That was our one argument in his whole life,” Tricia said. “… I told him you’re not going to quit because of this funk you’re in.”
Ryan had a lot of work to do to get out of his academic hole. While other seniors were enjoying their final months, he had to double up on classes, trying to get eligible for college.
“I thought, ‘He’s not going to get through it. He didn’t do it when it was easier, he’s not going to do it when it’s this hard,’ ” Tricia recalled. “But he did it. I’m so proud of him. He did stick to it and persevered. He just proved to me he’s a little me.”
Kevin Acee: (619) 293-1857; kevin.acee@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/24/against-all-odds/
Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
Hard times 'worth it' for new Bolts running back, mother
BY KEVIN ACEE, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.
Ryan Mathews’ mom, Tricia Mathews, never missed any of her son’s football games. Alex Horvath / Bakersfield Californian
There wasn’t room for much in the Mathews home when Ryan Mathews was a baby.
Only the necessities fit in a Cutlass Supreme.
The boy, a few months old, had two cloth diapers. He would wear one of them, while the other dried after his mom washed it.
Tricia Mathews, 16 years old, would get her daily meal in a Riverside soup line. She did odd jobs to pay for her baby’s milk.
The Cutlass, turned so many shades of green by the sun, would be parked in a church parking lot at night. What clothes they had were stored in the trunk. There was drinking water up front, some soap to use when showering in a nearby park.
There was a blanket and a pillow, and mom and son would sleep wrapped up in it and each other.
This story could have gone down a much different path than it has.
“I don’t know why,” Tricia Mathews said. “Maybe there was a bigger plan.”
Maybe it’s coming to fruition now.
Her son, Ryan Mathews, is about to become a millionaire. He’s going to play running back for his favorite team, taking over for his favorite player.
“All the suffering I went through is worth it for this moment for him,” Tricia said, speaking by phone Friday morning. “All those tired nights I wanted to quit but I didn’t, it was worth it to see his face when he picked up that phone.”
That would be the phone to answer the call Thursday night from Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith after the Chargers had made a bold move up in the draft to select Ryan Mathews 12th overall, making him the successor to the iconic LaDainian Tomlinson.
By the time Ryan hung up, Tricia was in tears.
“We made it,” she told her son.
Friday, after his introduction to the San Diego media, Ryan Mathews said, “That’s exactly what it is. We did make it. She’s worked very hard and done everything she can to turn me into the man I am today.”
Tricia also told Ryan that he’s grown up now, that it is his time.
But, in a way, this moment is hers, too.
“I am proud of myself,” she allowed. “I had a lot of people tell me I was doing a horrible job raising my son. I just did what I felt. I raised him from my heart.”
Yes, she worked a lot and sometimes Ryan was left alone “earlier than some people might think is right.” She let him dye his hair blond when he was 8, “because that’s what he wanted to do.” There weren’t a lot of rules in the home, “but he didn’t break any.”
She never missed a football game since he began playing. She made sure Ryan knew he was loved. She worked whatever job could be worked so he could have whatever he needed.
Tricia was in Fresno with Ryan on Thursday. She moved there from Bakersfield when he went to college and moved to Tennessee after this past football season was over.
“I’m going to live my life now,” she said.
Ryan Mathews said he’ll do whatever he can for her.
“She’s the reason we made it,” he said.
The “we” Mathews referred to was his brother, Dante, actually his closest friend since third grade whose mom abandoned him when the boys were about 13. Tricia took the boy in and eventually attained guardianship.
“Several times she could have called it quits,” Ryan Mathews said. “She never did. She’s a real strong woman with a tremendous heart.”
Tricia Mathews spoke matter-of-factly about the startling road she and her son have traveled. She said a few times she didn’t know how or why she made the decisions she did.
“I loved my little baby boy I had,” she said. “I wanted to give him something I didn’t have, and that was a good life.”
She came from a broken family, did not know her father. Her mother, clean 15 years now, was a drug addict at the time Tricia got pregnant.
Ryan’s father, who never married Tricia, left before the baby was born. According to Tricia, he has seen Ryan four times, most recently six years ago. She refused to apply for welfare and has never sought child support.
After a few months living in the car, Tricia simply decided, “This isn’t who I am.”
She sold the Cutlass for $100, used that on a bus ticket and moved in with her grandmother in Tehachapi. She got a job (jobs), saved some money and got an apartment.
Tricia “did a little bit of everything,” including washing dogs. She worked the 6 a.m. shift at a gas station and waitressed in the afternoon. For a while, as a third job, she drove around a landscaping crew on weekends.
She eventually got hired as a wind server operator, working 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in the middle of nowhere.
“All by myself,” she said with a laugh. “I stopped watching scary movies real quick.”
She worked her way up, getting into data analysis before leaving the company after moving to Fresno, though she continued to work.
“I never stopped working,” she said. “I just kept trying to get better in life. … You can either be a victim in life or work hard to get something.”
It rubbed off.
By many accounts a kid without a character blemish, Ryan went through a brief period in high school where he was skipping class. He failed some. He wanted to quit football.
“That was our one argument in his whole life,” Tricia said. “… I told him you’re not going to quit because of this funk you’re in.”
Ryan had a lot of work to do to get out of his academic hole. While other seniors were enjoying their final months, he had to double up on classes, trying to get eligible for college.
“I thought, ‘He’s not going to get through it. He didn’t do it when it was easier, he’s not going to do it when it’s this hard,’ ” Tricia recalled. “But he did it. I’m so proud of him. He did stick to it and persevered. He just proved to me he’s a little me.”
Kevin Acee: (619) 293-1857; kevin.acee@uniontrib.com
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/24/against-all-odds/
Monday, April 26, 2010
Things you should know about your grandparents rights
Things you should know about your grandparents rights
Apr 18th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparent Rights
This message is not intended to scare you. Actually, I hope it will instead inform you enough and give you some concrete ideas about what is out there for grandparents to enjoy. At the same time, I want to make you aware that your grandparents rights are important when it comes to these matters.
Grandparents are as a group about 1/3rd of all adults in America. They contribute in extraordinary proportions to their grandkid’s well being.
A few examples according to AARP are:
1. More than half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s educational expenses.
2. Almost half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s living expenses.
3. One fourth of all grandparents help pay for medical or dental care for their grandchildren.
4. More than half of all grandparents believe they play a very important role in their grandchildren’s lives.
This adds up to an enormous positive impact on our grandchildren, and as I learn more about what rights grandparents have if something happens to our grandchild’s family unit I am alarmed.
I am not sure why but the founding fathers didn’t include us in the constitution and/or the Supreme Court of most states. The United States Supreme Court doesn’t seem to recognize and support the contribution and significant effect that the grandchild’s bond with the grandparent has on the children.
From what I can gather, it seems that there is no continuity of legal president state to state. The laws that do exist are thin and ineffective where it concerns grandparents rights.
If that doesn’t get your attention, how about this? The most recent Supreme Court ruling in 2007 places the burden on the “Third Party” (we are to assume that means grandparents since they were the plaintiffs) to prove that the child will be harmed if they don’t get to see their grandparents.
It is my hope that as you read this that you have the good fortune, as I do, of being blessed with meaningful and fun time with your grandkids. I can’t imagine the nightmare it would be to have this relationship ripped away from me because of the actions of someone else.
What are we to do? One important step is to be aware of what our grandparents rights really are. Resources like The Custody Center are there to fill in this information for us and help us make good decisions as grandparents.
I want you to celebrate the fact grandparents in this country are making this a better world for those most deserving young people we call grandchildren. Pat yourself on the back. But at the same time, be aware of your grandparents rights, what little there are.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/about-grandparents/things-you-should-know-about-your-grandparents-rights
Apr 18th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparent Rights
This message is not intended to scare you. Actually, I hope it will instead inform you enough and give you some concrete ideas about what is out there for grandparents to enjoy. At the same time, I want to make you aware that your grandparents rights are important when it comes to these matters.
Grandparents are as a group about 1/3rd of all adults in America. They contribute in extraordinary proportions to their grandkid’s well being.
A few examples according to AARP are:
1. More than half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s educational expenses.
2. Almost half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s living expenses.
3. One fourth of all grandparents help pay for medical or dental care for their grandchildren.
4. More than half of all grandparents believe they play a very important role in their grandchildren’s lives.
This adds up to an enormous positive impact on our grandchildren, and as I learn more about what rights grandparents have if something happens to our grandchild’s family unit I am alarmed.
I am not sure why but the founding fathers didn’t include us in the constitution and/or the Supreme Court of most states. The United States Supreme Court doesn’t seem to recognize and support the contribution and significant effect that the grandchild’s bond with the grandparent has on the children.
From what I can gather, it seems that there is no continuity of legal president state to state. The laws that do exist are thin and ineffective where it concerns grandparents rights.
If that doesn’t get your attention, how about this? The most recent Supreme Court ruling in 2007 places the burden on the “Third Party” (we are to assume that means grandparents since they were the plaintiffs) to prove that the child will be harmed if they don’t get to see their grandparents.
It is my hope that as you read this that you have the good fortune, as I do, of being blessed with meaningful and fun time with your grandkids. I can’t imagine the nightmare it would be to have this relationship ripped away from me because of the actions of someone else.
What are we to do? One important step is to be aware of what our grandparents rights really are. Resources like The Custody Center are there to fill in this information for us and help us make good decisions as grandparents.
I want you to celebrate the fact grandparents in this country are making this a better world for those most deserving young people we call grandchildren. Pat yourself on the back. But at the same time, be aware of your grandparents rights, what little there are.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/about-grandparents/things-you-should-know-about-your-grandparents-rights
Grandparents rights all about the kids
Grandparents rights all about the kids
Apr 26th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparents rights
When grandparents rights are implemented in the way they were intended a great amount of good is the result. Nearly every state in the union has some form of grandparents rights legislation and, according to every court case, custody evaluation, and case study I have read all of these state laws place the emphasis in the best interest of the child.
If there was ever a win-win situation then this is it. If only life were that clear cut.
My heart aches a lot when I read the transcripts of the cases of very abused and neglected children. Story after story of ill-equipped, non-functioning parents that are just trying to show the world that they wield some power over something and the children be damned.
In most cases the courts give these parents opportunity after opportunity to get their act together before any action is taken. In most of these cases it is the grandparents that have come to the rescue of the grandchildren. This is just the kind of circumstances that the grandparents rights laws were enacted for.
It was not long ago that the grandparents would not have had “standing” in the court. The result of this approach was that it took much longer to get the help to the child in crisis where it was needed.
Now that these laws offer grandparents this standing it gives them the right to address the court on behalf of the children, nothing more. It is not a mandate to take any rights from parents, it merely allows a caring grandparent to be heard above the rants and rationalizations of a parent who most often has lost the ability to provide safety and nurture to the child.
To be clear, the court offers the parents every avenue to right the wrong and function in their child’s life. The court uses Comprehensive Custody evaluations to separate the truth from accusations. In most cases a custody study will be carried out by an outside independent Guardian Ad Litem in an effort to be fair to all.
This process will include tools such as psychological testing, chemical dependency evaluations, urinalysis, previous court records, etc. Without belaboring the point let me just say that in every case I have studied the courts go to the mat to protect the parents rights. This approach, while painful for those caring bystanders, is consistent with the United States Constitution as it applies to parental rights.
Parents rights are addressed in the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the constitution which might indicate their importance. You won’t get an argument from me on this point.
Some cast this whole discussion as an argument for parents rights against grandparents rights and that is missing the entire point. The one and only guiding principle and standard for this entire issue, the best interest of the child.
What is this best interest of the child? To this end the court is instructed to consider and evaluate all the relevant factors such as:
The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to custody.
The reasonable preference of the child, depending on the child’s age.
The input of the child’s primary caregiver if different than parent(s).
The intimacy of the relationship between the child and each parent.
The interaction and relationship of the child with parent(s), siblings, grandparents and anyone else who significantly affects the child’s best interest.
The child’s adjustment to school, home and/or community.
The longevity of a stable and satisfactory environment with a consideration for maintaining continuity.
The security and permanence of a family unit that exists or is being considered for a custodial home.
The physical and mental health of the individuals involved.
The disposition and capacity of the custodial parties to give love, affection and guidance to the child.
The ability to educate and raise the child in the child’s own culture and religion or creed, if any.
The presence in the household of anyone who has allegedly committed domestic abuse.
The physical living conditions of the custodial home.
The willingness of the custodial parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the child’s other parent, absent any danger to the child.
All of these factors revolve around sole custody…these and many other factors come into play when joint custody is sought.
The point is that these are childrens’ lives and I am not sure everyone wouldn’t be better served if we throw the parents rights and grandparents rights into a blender and created the best interest of the child’s rights.
I encourage anyone who reads this article to learn all they can about the subject of grandparents rights. My goal for caring grandparents and caring parents to make this entire subject all about the child.
Please be well and happy.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/grandparents-rights/grandparants-rights-all-about-the-kids
Apr 26th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparents rights
When grandparents rights are implemented in the way they were intended a great amount of good is the result. Nearly every state in the union has some form of grandparents rights legislation and, according to every court case, custody evaluation, and case study I have read all of these state laws place the emphasis in the best interest of the child.
If there was ever a win-win situation then this is it. If only life were that clear cut.
My heart aches a lot when I read the transcripts of the cases of very abused and neglected children. Story after story of ill-equipped, non-functioning parents that are just trying to show the world that they wield some power over something and the children be damned.
In most cases the courts give these parents opportunity after opportunity to get their act together before any action is taken. In most of these cases it is the grandparents that have come to the rescue of the grandchildren. This is just the kind of circumstances that the grandparents rights laws were enacted for.
It was not long ago that the grandparents would not have had “standing” in the court. The result of this approach was that it took much longer to get the help to the child in crisis where it was needed.
Now that these laws offer grandparents this standing it gives them the right to address the court on behalf of the children, nothing more. It is not a mandate to take any rights from parents, it merely allows a caring grandparent to be heard above the rants and rationalizations of a parent who most often has lost the ability to provide safety and nurture to the child.
To be clear, the court offers the parents every avenue to right the wrong and function in their child’s life. The court uses Comprehensive Custody evaluations to separate the truth from accusations. In most cases a custody study will be carried out by an outside independent Guardian Ad Litem in an effort to be fair to all.
This process will include tools such as psychological testing, chemical dependency evaluations, urinalysis, previous court records, etc. Without belaboring the point let me just say that in every case I have studied the courts go to the mat to protect the parents rights. This approach, while painful for those caring bystanders, is consistent with the United States Constitution as it applies to parental rights.
Parents rights are addressed in the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the constitution which might indicate their importance. You won’t get an argument from me on this point.
Some cast this whole discussion as an argument for parents rights against grandparents rights and that is missing the entire point. The one and only guiding principle and standard for this entire issue, the best interest of the child.
What is this best interest of the child? To this end the court is instructed to consider and evaluate all the relevant factors such as:
The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to custody.
The reasonable preference of the child, depending on the child’s age.
The input of the child’s primary caregiver if different than parent(s).
The intimacy of the relationship between the child and each parent.
The interaction and relationship of the child with parent(s), siblings, grandparents and anyone else who significantly affects the child’s best interest.
The child’s adjustment to school, home and/or community.
The longevity of a stable and satisfactory environment with a consideration for maintaining continuity.
The security and permanence of a family unit that exists or is being considered for a custodial home.
The physical and mental health of the individuals involved.
The disposition and capacity of the custodial parties to give love, affection and guidance to the child.
The ability to educate and raise the child in the child’s own culture and religion or creed, if any.
The presence in the household of anyone who has allegedly committed domestic abuse.
The physical living conditions of the custodial home.
The willingness of the custodial parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the child’s other parent, absent any danger to the child.
All of these factors revolve around sole custody…these and many other factors come into play when joint custody is sought.
The point is that these are childrens’ lives and I am not sure everyone wouldn’t be better served if we throw the parents rights and grandparents rights into a blender and created the best interest of the child’s rights.
I encourage anyone who reads this article to learn all they can about the subject of grandparents rights. My goal for caring grandparents and caring parents to make this entire subject all about the child.
Please be well and happy.
NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/grandparents-rights/grandparants-rights-all-about-the-kids
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)