This is me without my daughter I don’t pray much but when I do I ask for you!!!!! My prayer for today is for you my baby girl . Father in heaven I ask you in The truths name Father Father I ask that my prayer be heard like thunder and lightning to the ears of all man all daddies all mommies Father In heaven I ask for your help she’s innocent she’s true I know she comes from you !! So I ask and I pray for you!!! your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Your son Jason.
We’ve all heard of the term “Baptism by Fire” but, I wonder how many have ever considered its meaning. In the Christian biblical sense, it essentially means that it is a baptism by the spirit and the trial of one’s faith. This means that a believer’s faith is tested or tried through some sort of difficulty or a series of mental and physical trials.
However, this meaning has largely been replaced and the meaning most often used according to the definition used by the Oxford dictionary is, ‘a difficult introduction to a new job or activity’. One example of this is of a soldier’s first experience of battle. ‘Baptism’ because battle is new to him and ‘fire’ from the firing of guns that is, he is ‘under fire’.
When we look at both explanations, we can actually see similarities that can be equated to the tests of which we face through the struggles in the alienation of our children. This is when we are tested in our faith that we will be reunited with our children. The other aspect of this, is that alienation is new to us and how we respond to the many obstacles is critical.
There is no current legal recourse for a litigant parent or civil rights attorney who exposes misconduct in our courts. The Supreme Court has granted judges absolute immunity and has rejected every petition to date which seeks whistleblower protection in our third branch of government By Dr. Leon Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Our Top 10 Corrupt Judge series has become a big hit. Now as Donald Trump contemplates his pick for the long vacant ninth seat on our Supreme Court, we want to assure that the corrupt judges here hit the park bench and not any other kind of bench.
This is the third of a three-part series we call “Turkey Trilogy,” designed to protect all litigants from corrupt judges. You should subscribe to our Parenting Rights Institute if you have any case in any court impacting your children.
With all our uncompensated work exposing court corruption over the years…
January 24th, 2015 – I expressed my concerns for Zoraya’s behavior to three Supervised Visitation Monitor/Reporter after visit with daughter. For Zoraya’s safety and well-being!! The Supervised Visitation Supervisor Linda Fieldstone referred me back to Judge Manno-Schurr and she unjustly suspended my visits and contact with Zoraya..It’s okay to be with one of my children but not the other???
PETITIONER/FATHER’S AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION/TIMESHARING, AND ESTABLISH PARENTING PLAN
I, David M. Inguanzo in Propia Persona, being sworn, certify that the following information is true:
The parties to this action were granted a Final Judgment of Paternity on July 8th, 2010. That said Final Judgment and documents incorporated thereto, established the Timesharing and Parental Responsibility of the parties with the subject minor child, ZN, date of birth October 5th, 2006. A copy of the Final Judgment of Paternity dated 7/8/2010 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
Following the 2009 in vitro-assisted birth of Gus, a very public legal argument broke out between mother Danielle Schreiber and her former boyfriend and the child’s sperm donor, Jason Patric. Patric, a well-known actor who starred in films such as The Lost Boys and Speed 2: Cruise Control, petitioned for parental rights, arguing that he and Schreiber had been partners for years, and that he had every intention of fathering the child. He says he kept his name off the birth certificate to protect Gus from media attention.
Schreiber, citing section 7613(b) of California’s Family Code, maintains that as a sperm donor, and with no written agreement to the contrary in place before the child’s birth, Patric does not have any parental rights. In addition, Schreiber, through her lawyers, tells Newsweek that she and Patric never agreed to be co-parents, and that Patric never showed any intent of wanting to be the child’s father.
A 29-page letter written sent by Patric in late 2008 or early 2009 to Schreiber portrays a tortured man who ultimately says he’s not ready for fatherhood, but would act as a sperm donor as a “gift” to the woman he had loved, as long as she kept it a secret.
The trial court sided with Schreiber, awarding her full custody of Gus. A Domestic Violence Restraining Order was also issued against Patric by the trial court on November 25, 2013; in an email to Newsweek Schreiber’s legal team says this was in response to past instances of verbal, physical, and emotional abuse (including anti-Semitic remarks) levied by Patric towards Schreiber.
Manifests in a School or Educational Setting | Family Court Injustice
Those who perpetrate alienation not only manipulate the child but often manipulate other people, even professionals, in their war against the targeted parent. This commonly happens as “triangulation” – when one parent (usually the abuser or alienator) uses a third party, like a teacher or school principal, to play against the other parent.
“Changing a child last name (away from the father’s) is an act of venom”
THE TRUTH BY ZORAYA’S MOTHER
Parental alienation has various definitions but in a nutshell is when one parent works to damage a child’s relationship with the other parent (known as the “targeted parent”). As a result of alienation, child who previously had a close, loving, healthy (not abusive) relationship with the “targeted parent” then becomes estranged, hostile or rejects that parent. Many consider alienation a form of child abuse. The alienator may also elicit others—like educators—to similarly hate, reject or become hostile toward the other parent.
When alienation occurs in the school setting, the results are devastating: usually there is breakdown in communication between one parent and the educators (who have taken the side of the alienating parent, and may view the “targeted” parent in a negative light). The school may consciously or unconsciously reinforce the power and control tactics of the alienator, and sometimes the educators will even become personally involved in family court or custody litigation.
There are cases where an educator has become so aligned with one parent that they will give that parent a favorable impression to the court while becoming hostile towards the “targeted parent”; finding fault, blaming and criticizing that parent, even in areas that have nothing to do with the child’s education.
This issue is one that has been brought to my attention on many occasions and it is something that not only infuriates me, due to the forced abuse on the child or children involved, but the fact that some Family Courts are enabling this abuse and any child abuse is illegal under all Laws in every state and yet some courts and judges are actually encouraging it and ignoring the devastation that it causes on the innocent victim the child or children who irrespective of how much their parents may hate each other, they still love them unconditionally as mom & dad, and should be allowed to have both in their lives.
A Protective Order is issued or should be issued solely to protect one person from another and possibly a child if there has been proven abuse on this child and on the person filing for the order. However far too many women in particular are Abusing the courts and these orders so that they can keep the child away from their father. This is not out of fear NO this is out of them manipulating the system and playing victim when in many cases, they are the abuser and they are who the child needs protecting from and not the loving dad. A proportion of attorneys are as guilty as these women are as they know full well that there is no need for a order of protection but the $$$$ is more important to them, rather than the welfare of a child which should be paramount in any court.
Far too many women are now abusing these orders so that they can ensure their ex and the father of their child can’t see, speak or have visitation with their child. As to do so would be to breach the order of protection that the mom filed and sadly many file it out of malice and not out of any fear at all. He is in a catch 22 situation. Either he risks contacting her so as to organize to spend time with his child or children and she files a breach of the order, OR he has to follow the order and then his rights under any Custody Order are been breached as he can’t get to spend the time with his child or children. This is called Parental Alienation and under the US Senate it is considered a form of Child Abuse. So why are so many Judges and Attorney’s getting away with Enabling the Abuse of an innocent child without them having a basis to do so.
No child asks to have a particular mom or dad, but they love them all the same. And yet these children are been used as pawns just so that one vindictive and controlling parent usually the abuser herself but who has filed for the Protection Order, simply so as to hurt her ex and because she knows that she can. This is wrong and these women should be held accountable for their actions I know of one incident were the father was not even notified of the court proceedings, nor his attorney and an Extended Protection Order was granted and he now hasn’t seen his child in months, solely because she is too young to contact directly and he doesn’t want to be charged with breaching the order. This is total Child Abuse and very wrong and criminal in my opinion.
Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. ~ Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).