5 posts tagged “family law”

View other items tagged “family law:” Photos, Audio, Videos, Books or Links. View “family law” on Vox.

Judge to day care worker: Say you're sorry

Judge to day care worker: Say you're sorry Print E-mail
Wednesday, 13 May 2009

The former lead day-care worker at a Sun Prairie, Wisconsin day care center has been given probation for squeezing an 18-month old until she stopped breathing, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.

Dane County Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler gave Sara Kladenhall 5 years to "prove... she was sincere when she said she was sorry for what happened," reports the paper.

The child was revived by a co-worker and has since recovered.

Co-worker Lindsay Anderson, charged with child neglect for helping to hold the child down, was placed in a first offenders program.

The State Journal says that following that sentencing, Anderson was charged with domestic disorderly conduct in another case and dropped from the first offenders program.

On May 7, she pleaded guilty to the disorderly conduct charges and was placed, again, in the first offenders program. For a second time.
Post a comment Tags: advocacy, child abuse, child neglect, family law, court reform, court appointed, family court failures, family court corruption …

Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody

www.stopfamilyviolence.org/349
by Sarah Childress

Published on September 25, 2006 by Newsweek
Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody
by Sarah Childress


It took
six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her
husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from
the moment they married in 1994, she says. She tried to start over with
their children when the family moved from Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
It didn't last long. Tim called her constantly at work and, after they
split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities, she alleged in
a complaint filed in 2001. Tim was charged with harassment. As part of
a plea deal, Tim agreed to a stay-away order—but denies ever abusing
her or the children. In custody hearings over the past six years, Tim
has insisted that he's been a good father, and argued that Genia's
allegations poisoned their children against him. The judge sided with
Tim. This summer he was granted full custody of the kids, now 11 and 9.
Genia was barred from contacting them.


Genia is
one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a
controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory,
children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or
coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading
defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to
domestic-violence advocates. And it's working. The few current studies
done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one
2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard's Jay Silverman, 54 percent of
custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor
of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument
in nearly every case.


This
year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced
the theory as "junk science," and at least four states have passed
legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations
of domestic violence. "It's really been a cancer in the family courts,"
says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented
abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. "It's made it really
difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection,
you're deemed a vindictive, alienating parent."



It may
seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused
of abuse. But battered spouses often don't file criminal charges—so no
judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges
typically aren't trained to referee the complexities of abusive
relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives,
women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often
throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is
irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges
often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more
willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping
the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine
Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San
Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting
abuse in court so they don't lose their children. (Stahly and other
academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in
custody disputes that don't involve charges of abuse.)


Parental-alienation
syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in
the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying
it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive
director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates
for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order
to win custody of their kids.



There's
a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody
cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They've linked with
lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least
four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who
make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead.
Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is
drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month.
Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. "It's so hard, having my
children lost," she says, her voice breaking. "This was my life—my
children."

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?folder=12&page=349&T=#


Copyright © 2006 Newsweek
Post a comment Tags: family, social services, child support, child abuse, child neglect, family law, social worker, parental rights …

DHS INEFFICIENT IN WELFARE PAYMENTS, COSTING STATE MILLIONS

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is struggling to accurately and timely identify who is qualified to receive assistance, costing the state millions in misspent assistance dollars and millions more in potential federal sanctions and lost incentives, said a report from Auditor General (OAG) Thomas McTavish released on Friday.

DHS, which is responsible for determining eligibility for cash, food assistance, childcare and Medicaid cases, didn't effectively catch or fix errors in determination in the four years reviewed by the audit, from October 2002 through November 2006, the audit said.

Among the chief finds of auditors was that DHS mistakenly sent out payments in fiscal year 2006-06 in 7.5 percent of cases, which the report attributed to ever increasing caseloads from workers.

Although DHS has made strides in its system, the error rate in Michigan in 2005-06 was still 1.5 percent higher than the federal government tolerates, opening the state to economic sanctions much like the $89 million the federal government initiated for the fiscal years 1995-02.

Not only is Michigan inaccurate in its approvals but it's slow, too, the report said.

Michigan ranks 45th in its turnaround time with 81 percent of clients receiving approvals within the 30 days required by the federal government. That compares to Massachusetts , which ranked first and informs nearly 99 percent of its clients about their case status within a month.

In order to progress further, DHS said, it needs more "resources," because, although officials agreed with many of the audit's suggestions, they can't comply with them without more funds.

Among the fixes the department said it would initiate with more money is a study of how many workers it needs to handle caseloads and what tasks could be done by other staff members to increase worker availability for clients.

With more than 75 percent of workers and 87 percent of managers reporting that caseloads are too high, the study will likely find that more staff is needed, but the department said it can't hire more workers without additional funding.

As usual, the Department immediately cries "We need more money! We need more staff!" They told the OAG they would use additional dollars to "do a study". In fact, the OAG said that "DHS did not conduct a workload analysis to determine optimal caseworker staffing levels" and not only did they not do that last year, they hadn't done it in 2001-02 after being told they should by the Auditor General. So now they say they will if we give them more money?

You may read the audit for yourself. Here is the link: http://audgen.michigan.gov/comprpt/docs/r431028505.pdf

Does DHS need more staff? Do they have too many managers and not enough case workers? It is hard to get those answers; the Department is not forthcoming. The bottom line is the Department of Human Services has been woefully inefficient and inept for years and it continues to be in spite of repeated Audit Reports reporting the problem and even suggesting the solution. This is a problem that cannot be fixed by the OAG and it cannot be fixed by the Legislature. It must be addressed by the "Executive". That's right folks; I am talking about the governor and her department heads.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but my Transparency bill, which would expose the entire state budget, including that of the DHS, to the sunshine for everyone to see and closely examine, would go a long way toward resolving many of these issues.

On March 12, 2008, a joint committee of the Legislature met to ask for answers from the Department. What was their answer? We need more staff. We need more time. We are implementing a new program in the NEXT TWO YEARS. Once we have that in place, it will be better.

Here is hoping that Director Ismael Ahmed, the recently appointed Director of DHS can effectively address the issue.

What is Going on in the House?

To keep abreast of bills moving through the House of Representatives, check my blog. I will be posting when the House is in session at www.CorePrinciples.blogspot.com

Post a comment Tags: family, tennessee, knoxville, child support, child abuse, child neglect, family law, knox county …

Judicial discipline in 2007

Judicial discipline in 2007

In 2007, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, nine judges were removed from office (including one former judge). Six judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to agreements with judicial commissions that were made public. 104 additional judges (or former judges in approximately 15 cases) were publicly sanctioned in 2007. In 42 of those cases, the discipline was imposed pursuant to the consent of the judge. (These figures do not include pending recommendations or decisions pending on appeal.)

There were 19 suspensions without pay, ranging from one week to 18 months (with six months stayed with conditions); one suspension also included a public reprimand and $1000 fine; one also included a public reprimand and $1500 fine. In addition, there were 24 public censures; 22 public admonishments; 30 public reprimands (one reprimand also included a $500 fine, one also included a $3500 civil penalty); two cease and desist orders; three attorney discipline cases involving former judges for conduct as judges; and four other public dispositions (a private reprimand that was made public and three cases in which misconduct was found or stipulated to but no sanction was imposed).

The 2007 cases illustrate the variety of misconduct, both on and off the bench, for which judges may be sanctioned. As in other years, many cases involved discourteous demeanor in the courtroom, such as becoming angry with a litigant, treating attorneys in a sarcastic and belittling manner, using religious and ethnic slurs, and abusing the contempt power. Delay, administrative failures, and offensive language in dealing with staff also resulted in discipline for several judges. As always, ex parte communications (independent investigations or conversations with parties, attorneys, an Army recruiter, an arresting officer, witnesses, a landlord, or defendants’ relatives, for example) and failure to disqualify (from cases involving a judge’s attorney, a neighbor with whom the judge had poor relationship, or relatives, for example) also formed the basis for judicial discipline sanctions for several judges. Eight judges were sanctioned following driving while intoxicated offenses, while four former judges were disciplined based on criminal convictions for domestic violence, tampering with a utility company meter, failing to file federal income tax returns, or common law misconduct in office.

As usual, judges’ failure to resist the temptation to assist friends and relatives by using the power or prestige of office to fix tickets or ask for leniency from police, prosecutors, and other judges resulted in numerous sanctions in 2007. Less typical conduct sanctioned in 2007 included, by different judges, pushing counsel; assaulting an off-duty police officer and verbally abusing the officer’s wife; pursuing a defendant who had fled from the courtroom; telephoning a defendant’s alleged drug dealer in open court; directing a mother in a custody case to lower her pants in the courtroom to view a wound; approving a plea agreement that sent a defendant to another state; and having a domestic violence victim’s facial injuries photographed. Charitable fund-raising in the courthouse, including direct solicitation of attorneys, and an adulterous affair, including sexual intercourse in the courthouse, also led to discipline of two judges in 2007.

Many cases involved egregious handling of cases or a pattern of abuse of discretion, for example, issuing judgments without conducting a hearing or providing for service of process; finding unrepresented defendants had violated their probation without following due process requirements; increasing or threatening to increase defendants’ sentences for asking questions or offering defenses; informing unrepresented defendants at arraignment that their only choices were to plead guilty or accept diversion; failing to advise criminal defendants of constitutional and procedural rights; failing to accept guilty pleas in accordance with court rules; and following a practice that appeared to coerce criminal defendants to waive their right to jury trial. In many cases, the judge’s misconduct was exacerbated by failure to respond to inquiries by the conduct commission, making false or misleading statements to the commission, retaliating against the complainant, or attempting to influence the testimony of a witness.

The Judicial Conduct Reporter, a quarterly published by the Center for Judicial Ethics, reports developments in judicial discipline, tracks changes in codes of conduct, and analyzes recent decisions and advisory opinions. The fall 2007 issue has articles on campaign supporters and disqualification, the judicial accountability system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, developments following Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, and assessing complaints about judicial conduct and summaries of recent advisory opinions on teaching by judges. An annual subscription costs $32 ($36 foreign). A single issue of the Reporter may be ordered for $9 ($10 foreign) plus postage and handling.

AJS and Center publications can be ordered on-line at www.ajs.org. Click here for more information.

Dated January 23, 2008

Click here to go back to the previous articles page.

 

http://www.ajs.org/include/story.asp?content_id=678

Post a comment Tags: family law, family court, lisa smith. tim irwin, court reform, child custody, court appointed, knox county juvenile court, family court corruption …

legal links and infor for tn

Post a comment Tags: tennessee, fraud, family law, social worker, perjury, juvenile court, knox county, lisa smith …