You should post whatever you want. The more information the better. Many others on this forum are posting all sorts of things, why hold back if you have things that aren't available to the rest of us? It's so easy to make allegations against unnamed people, picking and choosing facts to post<quoted text>
I do believe you are missing the point about how hard it is to appeal, which was your question.
But going further--how, exactly, do you prove a judicial decision was based on a campaign contribution? Or a friendship? Or for other political reasons?
In this public forum, it is not appropriate to disclose the names of litigants. However, if you want the names of certain lawyers and judges who are indisputably and intimately involved with each other, and/or the Marin family court, as a matter of public record, that is a different story.
Do you want me to post that information?
Full story: Marin Independent Journal
#101 Aug 5, 2009
#102 Aug 9, 2009
Please read the comments to the other IJ story about family the court audit:
#103 Aug 9, 2009
Re that last post, I meant "about the family court audit", not "about family the court audit". Sorry
#104 Aug 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Update: California Parental Alienation Bill, AB 612 Bill Defeated thank God....!!!!
We want to apologize for this late update on AB 612, the California bill that was carried by Assemblyman Beall that would have prevented a court from considering evidence that a parent had deliberately engaged in tactics and behavior that intentionally estranges a Childs bond with their other parent.
Before we continue we want to pay special tribute to: The Family Law Executive Committee of the California State Bar (FLEXCOM) and The California Psychologist Association (CPA) for their outstanding work and help this year on making sure committee staff and members were better informed and educated on Parental Alienation.
As a result of all of the hard work that when into this bill, it was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee and because of the way the rules work the issue will not be able to be heard again until June 2010.
We want to encourage you to read both the Assembly Judiciary Committee Analysis and the Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis on the bill. After reading these analysis’s you will plainly see that the education that was done made a big impact. We are hopeful that legislators and staff have been well enough educated on the issue this time around that no reasonable person would even considering carrying another piece of legislation that would attempt to do what this was trying to do.
This was the third year in a row now that CAFC has had to deal with this issue and bill. You can read more about our past involvement here.
This year after early discussions with the lead persons for FLEXCOM and CPA handling the bill, it was agreed early on that stronger educating efforts for committee staff and members was need. Although our combined past efforts had included educating committee staff and members, this years efforts pulled out all stop to make sure that staff had the best and most accurate information on the issue. Some of this was covered in our earlier post here.
Additionally in our discussions with FLEXCOM and the CPA we all shared the concerns that this bill could have had the potential to turn into a debate about gender and take the focus off the merits and facts of the issue. As a result CAFC was asked to contact one of the prominent advocates for men and fathers, Glenn Sacks of Fathers & Family and making the difficult request that they not get involved or engage in the bill.
Namely, the use of parental alienation being used as a tactical weapon in child custody cases. As we have stated before that this has and is occurring in some cases, and is being exploited in the same way some use restraining orders to gain a tactical advantage in a child custody case. Parents who intentional exploited either should be sanctioned heavily for using these tactics because of the harm it causes children.
It is of our opinion that the way forward to address everyone’s concern is through better education on the issue. And we are hoping that cool heads will prevail and any future debate and discussion on this and other family law matters can be done in a respectful way that produces sound policy that serves the best interest of 21st century children and future generations.
While we know that the current economy is making it hard for all of you, we ask that everyone do what they can to donate to help assure our continued operations. And we can not thank those of you who are already contributing enough. Also please tell friends and family about us.
We are all in this together and together we can fix the problems children and families are currently facing. We thank you in advance for your continued support and donations.
Family Law, Mental Health, parental alienation
posted by Michael Robinson at 11:43 PM
#105 Aug 12, 2009
I would like to let you and others answer your question, by posing a hypothetical (which I just posted on the other webs site as well). This is a process, but I think it will be fun and instructive. And it is directly related to the audit.
Here is the hypothetical for you. Assume the following facts:
1. Assigned recommending court mediators (whose job it is to make a custody recommendation to the judge), are required by law to gather balanced information from both parents, and review the court custody files pursuant to CA Rules of Court 5.210 and 5.215.
2. In a case to which Mediator X is assigned, Mediator X makes a custody recommendation after reading ALL of mom's custody pleadings and declarations, but NONE of dad's custody pleadings and declarations, filed over a three-year period. Mediator X says she just didn't have time to read dad's pleadings.
Did the mediator comply with CA Rules of Court 5.210 and 5.215?
This is an open discussion, anyone can join in. Based on these hypothetical facts, who thinks the mediator followed the law?
Add your comments below
|CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10)||1 hr||dannytome||15,962|
|CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10)||1 hr||dannytome||200,587|
|Got wood ?||5 hr||Commander Bunny||18|
|CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10)||21 hr||Macko mono||5,000|
|CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10)||Thu||Tank ever||7,926|
|Former Tam High coach's sex trial goes to jury (Nov '10)||Aug 25||ToMark||36|
|Robin Williams Tunnel? Movement launched to ren...||Aug 24||Magnolia||14|
Find what you want!
Search Novato Forum Now