Fatherless homes impose a huge cost on society

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average. 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control) 80% […]

via Statistics — The Fatherless Generation

The reader will note that all of these statistics are complied by government agencies.  The huge cost that fatherless homes impose on society has been known for many years and yet fathers, and men in general are mocked and vilified.

Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California

Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California.
Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California.

Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California is the topic of this blog post.

Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California is extremely important as the length of a permanent domestic violence restraining order in California is generally three (3) years and in some cases even longer. The serious consequences that can result from having a domestic violence restraining order entered against you include the fact that any person that violates a restraining order, or even is alleged to have violated a restraining order is subject to arrest.

The negative consequences that result from having a restraining order entered against you include limiting or even temporarily eliminating your rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to own or possess any guns, firearms or even ammunition.  It can also negatively impact your employment and sometimes your reputation in the community as well.

Opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California can be difficult if all that you have is the word of the victim against your own word where there are no pictures or witnesses to support your side of the story. Proper preparation can enable you to properly challenge the issuance of a restraining order and possibly convince the court that one is not necessary. Because of the various serious consequences of a restraining order you should consult an experienced attorney who has knowledge with these types of legal issues if you can afford it.

The first essential preparation for any defense will be to study the law in order to understand the elements required for the particular type of restraining order that is being sought. For instance, in the State of California there are several different types of restraining orders such as civil harassment, domestic violence restraining orders, restraining orders involving elder abuse, workplace violence, emergency protective orders, and criminal protective orders. Researching the law regarding the particular type of restraining order that is being sought will allow you to determine who has the authority to issue them, the burden of proof required in order to obtain the restraining order, the duration of the restraining order, and most important of all, what elements are required in order to obtain them.

The second essential preparation for an effective defense is to carefully review the allegations made in order to determine if those allegations do or do not apply to each element required for the particular order of protection being requested.

One common example would be the issuance of a temporary restraining order in California based on an allegation of domestic violence. In that case the burden of proof is very low; a reasonableness of abuse or possible abuse will be enough.

This burden of proof will entitle the protected party to a temporary restraining order that will last only until an evidentiary hearing can be held to determine if a longer protective order such as a permanent order should be issued. In order to obtain a restraining order with a longer duration requires a higher burden of proof known as a finding of a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that the party that has the most evidence supporting their position will prevail. Many judges would agree that where it can be shown “it is more likely than not” that the elements necessitating a restraining order are met, that a restraining order must be issued by law.

In order to obtain any long-term restraining order based on domestic violence the protected party will need to show both a relationship and abuse. The elements of abuse for domestic violence are detailed in California Family Law Code § 6300 et seq.

The third essential preparation for an effective defense is for the defending party or their attorney to persuade the court that the allegations asserted by the other party do not fit the definition of abuse. Frequently, individuals who are not prepared properly for this type of hearing almost immediately make damaging admissions that necessitate a restraining order be issued, even if the admitted activity was in fact innocent.

In some cases a declaration will be filed by the protected party that is exaggerated or consists mostly of vague generalizations with no specific facts provided. In these situations a good argument can be made that the other party has failed to provide any specific details of circumstances and is therefore not credible because of the lack of details. For instance if the declaration alleges that the petitioner has been harassed numerous times a defense strategy would be to request that the petitioner identify each and every instance of harassment and whether the communication was not proper meaning a communication that served no legitimate interest. The burden of proof is on the petitioner requesting the restraining order to prove each and every element required under the law. The duty of the defending party is to attack the credibility of the petitioner.

If you do not have the money for an attorney but still want to file a response so that you can give your side of the story to the Court you can download Judicial Council Form DV120-Response to Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order by clicking the link below.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv120.pdf

Sample legal template for opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a sample points and authorities in support of a response opposing a domestic violence restraining order in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration sold by the author can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/Fathersrights10/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

Child custody definitions in California

Child custody definitions in California.
Child custody definitions in California.

Child custody definitions in California are the topic of this blog post.

This blog post will provide basic information on child custody definitions in California.

Joint Legal Custody:

Joint legal custody means that both parents have the authority to make important decisions regarding the child’s health, education, welfare, religion, driver’s license, etc. In some cases a judge will give parents joint legal custody, but not joint physical custody.

Joint legal custody means both parents share the responsibility in making important decisions in their child’s lives, but live with one parent most of the time. In most situations, the parent that does not have physical custody has visitation with the children.

Parents with legal custody have the right to make decisions regarding:

Parents with legal custody have the right to make decisions regarding:

School or childcare

Religious activities or institutions

Psychiatric, psychological, or other mental health counseling or therapy needs

Doctor, dentist, orthodontist, or other health professional (except in emergency situations)

Sports, summer camp, vacation, or extracurricular activities

Travel

Where to live

Joint Physical Custody:

Joint physical custody means that each parent has significant periods of physical custody, although parents can share joint custody even if the timeshares are unequal. For example, one parent may alternate a weekend schedule and the other parent has the child the rest of the time.

Legal Custody:

Legal custody means that the parent that has legal custody has decision-making authority for issues with health, education, and welfare of a child. When both parents share this responsibility it is referred to as “Joint Legal Custody.”  When only one parent has this responsibility, it is referred to as “Sole Legal Custody.”

Physical Custody:

Physical custody means that the parent or parents have the physical responsibility for the care of the child. Physical custody can be joint physical custody or sole physical custody.

Primary Physical Custody:

Some attorneys avoid the use of either “sole custody” or “joint custody” and use the term “primary physical custody” to designate the parent who has day-to day care of the child.

However I want to stress that the child custody laws in California do NOT recognize the term “primary physical custody” as the California Supreme Court has stated that the term “`primary physical custody'” is not found in the Family Code, which instead distinguishes between “`[j]oint physical custody'” (§ 3004) and “`[s]ole physical custody'” (§ 3007). See In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1081, fn. 1; see also In re Marriage of Richardson (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 941, 945, fn. 2 (“Though frequently employed, the term `primary physical custody’ has no legal meaning.”.)

Using the term primary physical custody in any marital settlement agreement, or stipulated judgment or order can have negative consequences under certain circumstances such as move-away cases where one parent wants to move with the minor children to another city or state.

Sole Legal Custody:

Sole legal custody means that one parent is able to make all decisions regarding the child’s health, education, welfare, religion, driver’s license, etc.

Sole Physical Custody:

Sole physical custody means that one parent will have the physical custody of the child the great majority of the time, as well as responsibility for day-to-day care of the child.

Visitation:

If one parent has physical custody, the other parent is referred to as having visitation with the child.

Sample stipulation and order for child custody and visitation in California.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample stipulation and order for child custody and visitation in California created by the author can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/Fathersrights10/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modifying child custody and visitation in California

Modifying child custody and visitation in California
Modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Modifying child custody and visitation in California is the topic of this blog post.

Several California statutes and California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases outline the standards used and the burden of proof on the party seeking an order modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Laws governing modifying child custody and visitation in California.

The law in California states that child custody and visitation orders generally are modifiable throughout the child’s minority whenever the court finds a modification is “necessary or proper” in the child’s best interests. See Family Code § 3022.

In California, in child custody/visitation matters and child support, the family law court has continuing jurisdiction and the matter thus remains pending even after entry of the underlying dissolution (or legal separation or nullity) judgment.

In at least two published cases the California Supreme Court has stated that although the statutes governing custody adjudications only requires courts to ascertain the child’s best interest, the best interest standard has an added twist once a “final” judicial custody determination is in place: A party seeking to modify a “permanent” custody order can do so only upon a showing of a significant change of circumstances so affecting the child that modification is essential to the child’s welfare. Absent such a showing, any modification would be an abuse of discretion as denying the child the benefits of a stable home environment and thus would not be in his or her best interest.

In California, the trial court’s exercise of discretion is far more limited when it effects a change in existing custody orders than when it makes an initial custody decision.

Appellate courts are “less reluctant to find an abuse of discretion when custody is changed than when it is originally awarded, and reversals of such orders have not been uncommon.” Marriage of McLoren (1988) 202 Cal.App. 3d 108, 113, modification giving W joint legal custody (where original order gave H sole legal and physical custody) reversed because W failed to present proof of change of circumstances affecting children’s welfare.

Both the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal have stated that the “changed circumstances” rule is an adjunct of the statutory “best interests” test for determining child custody. See Family Code §§ 3011, 3040(b). It furthers the paramount goal of preserving the need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements, unless some significant change in circumstances indicates a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.

While the party seeking an order modifying child custody and visitation in California must make a showing of changed circumstances in many cases, there are exceptions to this rule that should be carefully considered and reviewed by any party contemplating requesting that the Court modify child custody and/or visitation orders in California.

For example the changed circumstances rule is triggered only after what is known as a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication. The ordinary best interest standard, without the additional changed circumstances burden of proof applies when the court makes any initial custody adjudication, and when it adjudicates custody following any temporary or interim custody

However as the policy is not to discourage parties from entering into custody stipulations, any doubts about whether the parties intended a stipulated custody order to be a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication will be resolved against finality and thus against application of the changed circumstances rule in subsequent proceedings to modify the stipulated order.

All indication is that, where the issue is disputed, a stipulated order will be deemed to be temporary or interim in nature unless it clearly states it is a final judgment as to custody or words to that effect. The order must affirmatively state that it is a final order.

In one case, a stipulated dissolution judgment awarded the parties’ joint legal custody, mother “primary physical custody” and father “reasonable visitation.” The judgment also recited, however, that “in the event the parties are unable to resolve their custody and visitation issues, they shall agree upon a therapist or counselor to assist them. If after meeting with a therapist or counselor, the parties remain unable to resolve their differences, they shall make an appointment with the Conciliation Court prior to either party filing a request with the Court for a hearing on the issue.” Despite other boilerplate language in the judgment stating it was intended to be a final settlement of the parties’ rights and obligations, there was no “clear, affirmative indication” that they intended the stipulated custody provision to be a final judicial custody determination. Quite the contrary, the stipulated language warranted “the opposite conclusion the parents disagreed and were attempting to resolve the custody and visitation issues.”

As to physical custody, the changed circumstances rule applies when the modification request seeks to remove custody from one parent and give it to the other. By contrast, no change of circumstances need be shown as a prerequisite to altering only the co-parenting schedule (the amount of time the child spends in each parent’s household) under a joint custody order. Proposed changes in parenting time are “not on a par with a request to change physical custody from sole to joint custody, or vice versa”; the only standard the moving parent must meet in such cases is the child’s best interest.

So long as the joint custody award itself is not being changed, the court has very broad discretion to revise the “coparenting residential arrangement” where the parents are unable to agree and call upon the court to intervene.

Despite what some people think, the changed circumstances rule does not apply when a parent requests only a modification of the visitation arrangement (whether in a joint custody or sole custody situation). Because such a modification does not change “custody,” the trial court considers a visitation modification solely under the child’s best interests standard.

Sample points and authorities in support of modifying child custody and visitation in California.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 13 page points and authorities in support of a request for an order modifying child custody and visitation in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration sold by the author can see below.

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Facebook at:

https://www.facebook.com/Fathersrights10/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

 

 

What if the Shoe Were on The Other Foot?

The laws need to be changed to allow for lawsuits to be filed for damages resulting from paternity fraud, including damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages in appropriate cases where the evidence is clear that the paternity fraud was intentional.

Fighting Against Paternity Fraud

There is no scenario that can be concocted which can completely capture a full comparison of Paternity Fraud.  It is a matter of reality, that a man, no matter how hard he may try, cannot easily convince a woman that she is the mother of a child, which was in reality mothered by another woman.  Let’s face it, barring a coma, women are quite well aware of giving birth to a child.  Women are quite well aware of conceiving a child, they know they are pregnant, and they experience child birth.  Men on the other hand, well, they are left to trust the fact that they are in a relationship that has a reasonable expectation of trust, honesty, and commitment that will overpower any level of doubt as to whether they fathered the child their female partner is attributing his fatherhood to.

With that being said, the scenario to be…

View original post 1,311 more words

Video: Tucker Carlson Brings Manosphere Talking Points to Mainstream Media — The New Modern Man

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson just threw open the shudders on the Overton Window by bringing manosphere talking points to the mainstream media just in time for International Women’s Day. Carlson’s erudite expose entitled “Something Ominous Happening to Men” helps introduce many of our grievances into mainstream discussion for the first time. In a litany […]

via Video: Tucker Carlson Brings Manosphere Talking Points to Mainstream Media — The New Modern Man

Great video that every man needs to watch. We need more media personalities to step up to the plate like Tucker Carlson did.

The Common Law ‘Schwerpunkt’: How Misandrist Feminism Acquires Institutional Backing — The New Modern Man

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society. All the major institutions of the Anglosphere are encoded with puritanical repression, which in turn nurtures misandrist Anglo-American feminism. Yet many other countries and cultural blocs share a repressive heritage, yet do not […]

via The Common Law ‘Schwerpunkt’: How Misandrist Feminism Acquires Institutional Backing — The New Modern Man

Excellent blog post that details the negative aspects of the common law which include the law of precedents which means that cases which were wrongfully decided, and there are many,  become legal precedent for future cases.

The author of this blog, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. He believes in Father’s Rights as he has seen first-hand the incredible bias against fathers in the family law courts in California. He is currently working on creating digital products that will assist fathers both in California and throughout the United States to represent themselves without an attorney in Court regarding custody and support issues.

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

Follow Fathers rights on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/Fathersrights16

Follow Fathers rights on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+Fathersrights

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.