Take The Bait

On By afla2016In Stand Up For Zoraya

  1. Lawyers are predominately paid by the hour. They want you to PAY for COMMON KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION that exists within their industry while they can try to create conflict within your divorce. The scary part… only one of the two parties involved needs to “take the bait” and the other is forced to defend him/herself. Judges are lawyers elected into their respective position. Lawyers make donations into election / re-election funds of Judges. Are you aware that a Judge can continuously rule in favor of a firm and then get hired by that firm after they leave the bench? How much of this scenario defines “Justice” to you? Time=Money. Your money. The Family Court is a multi-BILLION dollar industry which goes unaudited and for the most part, unchecked.

  1. Missouri needs to proactively define it’s position for the Family Court, through law, regarding the complete protection and support of equal rights regarding the parent-child relationship before, during and after all divorce proceedings and modifications. Doing so, puts all parties “on notice” that the court will not tolerate anything but an amicable and fair solution if the case goes to trial, based on custody time requested by each party (except where certain custody restrictions are already in place due to statute).

  1. Creation of the “Fair Parent Initiative” requiring the courts to take a proactive stance to uphold the parent-child relationship with each parent through respective custody time. This includes requiring all parties involved (Spouses, Lawyers and the Judge) to sign a document explaining Missouri’s position and protection of the parent-child relationship. The document would also inform the parties of the commonly referred to “Ziegenthaler custody plan” (every other weekend, one night a week, plus holidays and vacation… etc).

  1. The definitions and differences between “legal” and “physical” custody. Define what a “No-Fault State” is and it’s relevance to divorce proceedings. Inform the parties that a modification may be necessary if one party fails to uphold their portion of the court order. Inform each party that using separate lawyers is not required and both can use the same attorney throughout the proceedings to limit both time and money. Lastly, inform the parties of the state minimum  (45 days after filing the motion)  for an uncontested divorce. No attorney, firm, etc. would be allowed to charge any client or potential client for this information, for any reason. It shall be considered public information and required during all attorney-client relationships in all Family Court proceedings.
  2. The “Fair Parent Initiative” would also require Judge’s to rule on each of the (currently) eight criteria (section 2.) regarding factors determining custody for each case involving at least one child. The word “consider” (section 2.) should be changed to “enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law for” instead of…
    “…The court shall consider all relevant factors including…”.

Fair4Families - 2015

  1. Custody determination criteria found here:
  2. A Judge should be required to disqualify him/herself from a case if he/she has received campaign contributions from either party, a party’s lawyer or an expert witness.
  3. Why isn’t there a centralized data-collecting/reporting/auditing agency associated with our Family Court System?
    Something which can be reviewed  to protect the integrity and honor of our Family Court Judges who base their rulings on hard evidence from trial. Expose the assumptions for what they are or what they are not.
  4. Mediation should be binding by having the mediator write a report to the Judge regarding the goings-on at the mediation sessions. Mediation is not considered “mandatory” but it is frowned upon if you choose not to participate. Currently, just show up and it means you “tried”. Currently, the mediator can’t be used (or anything from any mediation sessions) as a witness at your trial.
  5. An escalated “censuring system” (or something similar) should be created for cases which are “kicked-back” from the Appellate Court as a means of upholding integrity and supporting overall justice within the original ruling while making sure the judgement mirrors the evidence from trial.
  6. A jury, instead of a single Judge, should be allowed in the Family Court System when requested. There is no more fair approach to attain justice within our system. The question is…. “Why are these critical decisions left to only one person who is no more qualified at making decisions regarding children than any common juror?” Why does the only avenue for justice allow for questionable tactics from people in authority? A jury would eliminate that possibility all together.

take-the-bait-1-2017In closing, the Family Court System needs to revolve around and fiercely protect the parent-child relationship with each parent. It needs to be made well-known and feared that one parent working to manipulate the system, will be working against him/her self right from the start. These actions could bring severe consequences based on the information gained and evidence received at trial. We’ve all heard people say, “I guess that case fell through the cracks”. The truth is, the cracks are huge. They are everywhere within the system and seem to be the norm, not the exception.

Ask yourself this… “Why does the Court turn a blind eye to one person infringing upon the rights of the other during the divorce process? Why doesn’t the state of Missouri, the Supreme Court, Appellate Court and Local Courts do something to actively protect our rights, and those of the child(ren), during this process?” Currently, you have to PAY for another lawyer Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to represent your child. Again, the state and the court are silent.

Please click on the “Petition” tab (next to the “Overview” tab and directly under the signature counter bar) to read the actual email which was sent to Missouri Congress members, along with a link to this page. It includes my story which can very easily happen to you.

Your feedback is very welcome!

Source: Erroneous Deprivation of Liberty 

Related articles