On Family Court induced separation and parental alienation: My answers to The Daily Surge reporter’s questions.
I was recently interviewed by a reporter from the Daily Surge investigating my custody case, and all of the illegal abuses I have suffered from the local Ulster County, NY CPS and family court system for exposing their corruption to the world.
My interview was accompanied by many documents and videos that I handed over to the reporter, but the question and answer portion is illuminating, and it went as follows:
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioner, reviewing the documentation and supplements, and having received no responsive testimony, substantive documentation, or other evidence from any of those cited officials, the Committee finds that the Petitioner was wrongly denied by the Family Division all visitation with his child contrary to N.H. law and his constitutional rights for approximately 13 months.
1. Made unlawful recommendations to the Court in her 2/11/11 guardian ad litem report including suspension of all visitation with his son with no findings of fact that it would be detrimental to the child and with no findings of abuse or neglect contrary to RSA 461-A:2;
2. Posited as fact the psychological condition of the minor child without being an expert herself, and with no expert psychological findings or report, and apart from any testimony that is the product of reliable principles and methods contrary to RSA 516:29-a;
3. Recommended the imposition of extrajudicial conditions on reunification contrary to RSA 461-A:2, RSA 461-A:6 and contrary to the presumption that fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children;
4. Recommended unlawful prior restraint of Petitioner’s free speech by restricting him from talking with his son about the subject of love (see RSA 461-A:6 I(a);
5. Recommended as a condition to see his son, that Petitioner enroll in a parenting class and separately in individual therapy which is contrary to the Troxel presumption that “fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children,” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57);
6. Did not complete the duties ordered by the Court in her stipulation;
7. Failed to comply with Family Division Administrative Order 2011-03 by not filing a final report with the Court and not submitting her final bill by the deadline;
8. Failed to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Order 17 by exceeding her court-ordered fee-maximum and not requesting a hearing to do so;
9. Fraudulently filed a stalking warning letter with the Dover/Laconia police departments in response to pro se Petitioner’s court-related correspondence for actions that do not qualify as stalking;
10. Failed to comply with GAL Ethics Rule 503.06(a)(1) by not recusing herself as requested after reporting that she was “fearful” of Petitioner; and,
11. Improperly recommended suspension of all of Petitioner’s visitation and parental rights with only allegations, but no findings of abuse or neglect per RSA 461:A-5 III.
The Committee finds that Marital Master Nancy Geiger also contributed to this when she:
1. Conducted a hearing that affected Petitioner’s parental rights without proper judicial notice per Duclos v. Duclos, 134 NH 42 – NH: Supreme Court 1991, quoting Morphy v. Morphy, 112 N.H. 507 – NH Supreme Court 1972;
2. Wrongfully recommended the suspension of Petitioner’s visitation and parental rights with no findings of abuse or neglect and no expert testimony;
3. Compelled Petitioner to finance the “therapeutic reunification” with his son in a forced contract contrary to Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43;
4. Utilized what she knew to be false and/or incomplete GAL report testimony of GAL Tracy Bernson in arriving at her decision;
5. Refused to admit Petitioner’s properly authenticated telephone logs as exhibits at trial; and,
6. Issued a parenting plan that does not comport with N.H. RSA 490-D:9, requiring the signature of a judge accompanied by the judge’s sworn oath.
Further the Committee finds that Judges Ned Gordon and Brackett L. Scheffy also contributed by:
1. Approving a Marital Master’s wrongful orders, therefore failing to provide proper review or oversight; and,
2. Approved a parenting plan that does not comport with N.H. RSA 490-D:9.
The Committee finds that Marital Master Leonard Green also contributed when he denied Petitioner due process of law by declining to issue orders on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and; finally, that Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly failed to provide adequate oversight and supervision of marital masters and judges in the Hooksett Family Division by permitting ongoing malfeasance to occur after Petitioner notified him of it in a lengthy letter to which same judge, with the power to fire Marital Masters at will, responded that he had no authority to intervene.
The Committee therefore recommends that legislation be introduced to so amend our laws as to:
1. Eliminate coerced contracts and/or stipulations with guardians ad litem;
2. Make clear that there is a presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children;
3. Provide greater supervision and accountability of guardians ad litem, marital masters, and judges in the circuit court family division;
4. Permit courts to deviate from equal parenting time distribution only in cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect by one or both parents or it is requested by party receiving the lesser proportion of time;
5. Adopt strict rules of evidence for the family division;
6. Require advance notice for any and all hearings; and,
7. Investigate whether impeachment proceedings should be initiated to remove Judge Edwin Kelly, Judge Ned Gordon, and Judge Brackett Scheffy. Vote 8-2.
Rep. Alfred P. Baldasaro for the Majority of the Committee
“Children’s Rights” is not just about Fathers, it’s also about Children, Mothers, Families, Public Advocacy, Civil Rights and Liberties. This Children’s Rights Facebook Group, Page and Cause have been created for positive outreach, networking, distribution and discussion of information related to our cause.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS • A continuing relationship with both parents.
• Be treated not as a piece of property, but as a human being recognized to have unique feelings, ideas, and desires consistent with that of an individual.
• Continuing care and proper guidance from each parent.
• Not to be unduly influenced by either parent to view the other parent differently.
• Express love, friendship, and respect for both parents: freedom from having to hide those stated emotions or made to be ashamed of such.
• An explanation that the impending action of divorce was in no way caused by the child’s actions.
• Not to be the subject and/or source of any and all arguments.
• Continuing, honest feedback with respect to the divorce process and its impact on the changing relationships of the family.
• Maintain regular contact with both parents and a clear explanation for any change in plans and/or cancellations.
• Enjoy a pleasurable relationship with both parents, never to be employed as a manipulative bargaining tool.
• The obligation of being a parent does not end after a divorce.
It is extremely important to understand that the bond of marriage is completely different from that of parents. This is the most common downfall in today’s society, as a dissolution of marriage takes place so does that of parenting.
A WORD ABOUT SELF REPRESENTATION ~ The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse.
Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right. Self-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one’s due process rights.
Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case’s outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly — with or without a lawyer.
Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living.
Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain “paid” access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
Be the first to know when FFCA Live opens for our National Families and Fathers 17th Annual Conference, and stay up-to-date on on other news and promotions.
This week, we will announce our full online conference schedule… Over the past several years, we hosted virtual attendees from Japan to Ireland, Pakistan to Colombia, Russia to Africa, Hawaii to Brazil, Australia to America and of over 90 nations!
2016, Can’t make it to the conference this year? No problem! You can watch every session — including Q&A’s, plenary sessions, workshops and other exclusive content — on-demand from the comfort of your office or living room…
Fathers have become undervalued, family structure has become disposable, children suffer without both parents but so often father is left out, seen as nonessential. Let’s correct this by bringing attention to it! With so many children lacking trusted guardians, we encourage and celebrate any parent willing and able to stand up as an example of unconditional love for their child. We believe children have a right to a meaningful, loving relationship with both their parents.
Similar to Actor Jason Patric‘s Stand Up For Gus cause; Stand Up For Zoraya is the story and cause of a hardworking father who put his best foot forward to establish child support, shared parental responsibility, normal and reasonable time-sharing with his daughter.
Learn how this Family Court System is injuring this father and child. Zoraya and David Inguanzo, an Alienated Child and Targeted Parent are desperately trying to maintain a meaningful relationship despite unjust court intervention and vexatious and malicious family law litigation by opposing party.
Since January of 2009, we’re happy to populate the Internet with information that is helpful, supportive, and conducive to fostering father-child relationships, reducing or eliminating Parental Alienation, for the betterment of our children’s psychological and emotional health, and for the future health of our families and societies.
In addition, Stand Up For Zoraya hopes to shed light on and reform an antiquated loopholes in our Legal Adversarial system in Family Law that degrades a father’s role.
Florida 11th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Soto – At the time of starting this petition, I have not seen my 8 year old daughter since January 24th, 2015. I have been unable to even speak on the phone with my daughter. I have research many other father’s experiences and it this is a GLOBAL issue. …See More