divorce lawyers floridaflorida family lawyers attorneys
FLORIDA FAMILY LAWYERS Directory divorce law collaborative law

florida lawyers attorneys

florida lawyers attorneys directory attorneys at law find statutes divorce collaborativetherapeutic jurisprudence - custody evaluators - guardians ad litem

also visit our directory at www.florida-attorneys-at-law.com
Florida Attorneys at Law

©2002 carlc.comcarlc.com.
family law research
and child custody evaluations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AGENDAS

Doubting Child Sex Abuse Allegations

Doubting Women's Domestic Violence Allegations
      ...but the MHP's Fears are Justified

False Memory Theory

Father's Rights (or anti-Mother) Custody Advocacy

Father's Rights Anti-Relocation Advocacy

Joint Custody in the Absence of Research

Parental Alienation Theory

Reluctance to Believe Mothers' Allegations, Believe Father's

"Sex Positivism"

Speculation about What Children Need

Speculation and Assumption When that Suits the Agenda
      ...but Requiring Hard Research When it Doesn't
            ...Such as in Battered Women's Surveys
                  ...or Sibling Attachments
                        ...or Post-Divorce Relocations

CONFIRMATORY BIAS

The Data Must Be Wrong

The Mother and Children Must Be Wrong

The Treating Therapist Must Be Wrong

GENDER BIAS, ANTI-MOTHER DISCRIMINATION

Bias Outright

Compare the Reactions

Bias Under the Guise of Gender Neutrality

"I Was Only Joking"

LACK OF EXPERTISE BY TRAINING

Lack of Decision-making Ability

Lack of Investigative Ability

Lack of Judgment

Lack of Expert Credentials in Relevant Area of Inquiry

Lack of Methodology

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE

Group Think

Not the Parenting Mavins You Might Think

Not the Research Mavins You Might ThinkLACK OF SCIENCE

Directionless Curiosity

It's Just Not Science

It's Not Science -- But That's Okay if I Like It

Protecting Vested Interests (Work in the Court System)

Psychometric Testing of Custody Litigants

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DUE PROCESS

Arrogance

Ignorance

Insistence on Keeping Underlying Data Secret

Just Don't Wanna Release That Report

Much Concern for the Copyright Claims of Test Publishers
      ...but not for the Copyright Claims of Article Publishers

Paternalistic Attitudes Toward Litigants

Role Confusion and Power-hungry Incompetence

Self-interest above Due Process

Self-interest as the Highest Priority

Self-Protection Above All

Subverting Attorney-Client Privilege

MAKE-WORK ON CAPTIVE CONSUMERS

Experimenting

Meddling and Social Engineering

Money, Money, Money

Parental Alienation Therapy

Parenting Classes

Parenting Coordination

Parenting Conjoint Therapy

Reunification Therapy

Treating Children Because of Parental Defects

Treating Perpetrators

Treating Victims

Trainings and Reviewings

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

"Do a Bonding Assessment"

"Do a Psycho-Sexual Evaluation"

 Joint Custody Just Does Not Work. Research from the California Judicial Council, 2000. Look at the findings; ignore the "spin." This study was done ostensibly to look at the results of mediated "parenting plans."

Look what happened to joint custody. As a lifestyle, it just does not work. Its only arguable accomplishment probably is to ultimately send more children into the sole custody of their fathers than otherwise would occur. (A primary reason fathers' rights groups push for it.)

However, it's unlikely that any group, children, mothers, or fathers, benefits from this phenomenon -- other than, of course, custody mediators, evaluators, and parenting coordinators, who make more money the more problematic and unworkable a "parenting plan" is. See "The Agenda Behind the Rhetoric." Most fathers who weren't the primary parents during their marriages eventually (if not immediately) palm off the primary parenting onto stepmothers and others. And in the long run, while it saves on paying child support (a psychic reward for the bread-winning father), it rarely costs less to have custody of a child than to pay child support. Mothers who initially were stay-home parents or merely their children's primary caregivers, and/or the dependent spouse, suffer long-term detriment, both economic and emotional. Most of all, the children themselves, who most likely did not need this in order to have a "relationship" with their fathers, just don't do well from repeated changes in household/family composition, and from the lack of stability.

Read the research, here, and here, and here.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL
by DiAnn Lindquist, Esq. (Colorado) joint custody research constitutional moveaway relocation children divorce

A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941).

This principle encompasses the right of individuals to "migrate, resettle, find a new job, and start a new life." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

Edwards, Shapiro, and their progeny were concerned with the constitutionality of state statutes designed to discourage indigent people from relocating to their state of choice.

The Supreme Court consistently held the statutes to be unconstitutional, reasoning,

"...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." Id.

The Court also held that the right of travel is "...a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Id. at 643, 89 S.Ct. at 1336.

For the same reasons that a state cannot prohibit a person from moving to a particular area, it also cannot prohibit a person from moving from a particular area.

Strict Scrutiny

Court action that places restrictions on a citizen's fundamental rights requires application of the strict scrutiny test. Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (1981); U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, 58 S.Ct. 778 (1938).

Under strict scrutiny, the state must show that it has a compelling purpose for denying the fundamental right and that the remedy chosen is narrowly tailored to meet the stated purpose. Shapiro, 394 U.S. at 634, 89 S.Ct. at 1331.

Requiring a citizen to live in a specific locale, thereby restricting his or her fundamental right of travel, must be based on compelling state concerns. Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).

Parents also have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their natural children, and due process must be provided when the state interferes with that relationship. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

This argument successfully was used in the mother's brief in the Colorado Supreme Court relocation case of Spahmer v. Gullette, decided June 5, 2005 (Barry Seidenfeld, Esq. and Anne Whalen Gill, Esq., counsel.)
Also see, decided the same day, Ciesluk v. Ciesluk,