War on Family
(MOTOR CITY MUCKRAKER) Steve and Maria Green watched in terror last year when Child Protective Services removed 8-month-old Baby Bree from their Lansing home.
Today, as Baby Bree turns 1, Maria Green is now fighting for the right to see her 7-year-old son.
The reason: They use state-approved medical marijuana.
Maria Green’s ex-husband is trying to deny Maria parental rights to her 7-year-son by saying that she and her husband are “ringleaders of a small separatist group within the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community” because they are involved in a pot advocacy group, The Human Solution, which does not promote anything illegal.
(Robert Franklin, Esq.) Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son of whom he has custody. Here’s the opinion of the California appellate court.
Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order.
As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question “what would happen if the sexes were reversed?”
Jon and Sarah were married in 2000. Both were actors at the time. They had a son, but divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support. By 2009, Sarah’s life had gone from bad to worse. Apparently she hasn’t had an acting job since 2005. Indeed, if she’s had any job at all, it’s not reflected in the evidence before the court. For that matter, she seems entirely disinclined to look for work, for reasons which will become obvious.
Both Jon and Sarah remarried, but it took only a few years for Sarah’s second marriage to hit the skids. She had a son by that marriage too and maintained custody of both boys.
Soon though, Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied, but the court admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. In 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care and both children were taken from her and given to their dads.
So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10,000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don’t pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that’s usually the case, but not here. Here, Jon must continue paying Sarah $8,000 a month even though she only sees the child 4% of the time.
Why? Because she’s a deadbeat, that’s why. I’m really not making this up. Sarah answered Jon’s request for a reduction of child support by saying it’s her only income, which apparently it is. That’s because she hasn’t had a job of any kind since 2005. Into the bargain, she’s not looking for one. In her last filing, she listed her monthly income (outside of child support) as zero and her monthly expenses as over $13,000.
So, according to both the trial and the appellate courts, because Sarah is too much of a deadbeat to even attempt to support herself, Jon must continue to support her with the child providing the weakest of pretexts for doing so.
How many times have fathers been told that they should stop griping about the countless injustices of the child support system because it’s all for the child? Yes it’s unfair they’re told, but just put a sock in it and pay; it’s for the child, don’t you see.
Well, this case gives the lie to that and doesn’t beat around the bush about it. No one believes that it takes $8,000 a month ($96,000 a year) to support a child 4% of the time. The money has nothing to do with child support; it has everything to do with deadbeat Mom support. In this case, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line, and it is this – Jon earns a lot of money, Sarah earns none; therefore Jon pays Sarah even though he’s the custodial parent. Simple.
Now no opinion in a custody case would be complete without genuflections to the best interests of the child, and this is no exception. Sarah told the court that, if Jon didn’t pay her ”child support,” she’d lose the house she lives in and that he helped her buy when they got divorced. Assuming that to be the case, that would mean that she’d have to live somewhere else.
According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son. Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day. So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.
Of course it would be nothing of the sort. Millions of children in this country live their whole lives in worse conditions and muddle through perfectly well.
Into the bargain, cutting Sarah off Daddy welfare might actually encourage her to better herself. The judges didn’t manage to notice what everyone over the age of about 12 would – that the reason Sarah has no income and is making no effort to work and earn is that she’s living off of Jon. Take his income away from her and maybe she’d start lifting a finger. Hey, anything’s possible.
But the courts weren’t finished. Perhaps sensing the radical injustice of what they were doing, both tried another tack. Because Sarah’s children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.
No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn’t. That could have changed at any time. The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.
So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon’s child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time. Let me remind you; I’m not making this up.
We all know that, if the juvenile court had altered the custody situation significantly, either Jon or Sarah could have gone to court and requested a modification of child support based on changed circumstances. And guess what. The courts know that too; they even said as much. But according to them, because circumstances might change in the future, their hands are tied; Jon has to keep paying to support his ex-wife because, well something might happen.
It’s hard to get more blatant than this. It’s Mommy support thinly disguised as child support. The child will never see one-tenth of this money. In fact, she’s using it to pay her lawyers in the dependency case.
And again, imagine if the sexes were reversed. Imagine a father saying “Judge, it’s true I can earn a living but haven’t lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it’s true I lost custody because I’m dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it’s child support.”
Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail? I can’t decide.
(THE AMERICAN DREAM) Has the sexual revolution been good for American women? Not at all. In fact, when you look at the facts it becomes clear that the sexual revolution has been an absolute disaster for American women. In the United States today, men have been trained to primarily view women as sex objects, and our culture has become exceedingly promiscuous. As a result, the United States leads the world in teen pregnancy, there are 19 million new STD infections every single year, more than half of all children born to women under the age of 30 are being born out of wedlock and we are witnessing the systematic breakdown of the family unit in America. And yet anyone that tries to teach our young women that they should dress modestly and keep themselves pure for marriage is severely criticized. Well, if all Americans actually did keep themselves pure until marriage, we wouldn’t have nearly the problems with STDs, teen pregnancy and abortion that we do today. The consequences of teaching our young women that they should be “free” to run around and sleep with a whole bunch of different men have been dramatic. The following are 25 signs that American women are being destroyed by the sexual revolution and our promiscuous culture…
Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (01-23-2013) the Truth About The Womens Rights Movement, Women In Combat & The Destruction of The Family
(FEDERALJACK) On this edition of DTRH Popeye starts off by breaking down the recent decision by the Pentagon to allow women in frontline combat positions. Although to many the idea sounds like more opportunities for a woman’s career in the military the reality of the situation is drastically different. Popeye also exposes the myth that the women’s rights movement was about equal rights for women. You will hear from Aaron Russo, before his death of cancer, speak about information that was given to him by Nick Rockefeller as to the true purpose behind the Rockefeller family funding the women’s rights movement, and it certainly wasn’t so women could be free.
YOU CAN ALSO LISTEN ON YOUTUBE
Twitter: https://twitter.com/FederalJack & https://twitter.com/DTRH_Popeye
Popeye’s Archive Page: http://www.federaljack.com/?page_id=98027
Listen Live Page: http://www.federaljack.com/?page_id=11598
(FOXNEWS) A Canadian dance studio is offering pole dancing classes for children as young as 5 years old, CTV News reports.
Twisted Grip Dance & Fitness, in Duncan, British Columbia, has in its lineup a pole dancing class it calls “Little Spinners,” geared toward boys and girls of all ages, owner Kristy Craig tells CTV.
Craig said she introduced the class because existing clients wanted it, and so far three girls and one boy have registered for classes, which start on Sept. 22. Her youngest student is 5 years old, the oldest is about 12 years old.
Craig says there’s nothing sexual about the class, but the front page of the studio’s website shows sexy, sparkly high-heeled shoes for sale for performers, MyFoxDFW.com reports.
The children’s pole dancing class will reportedly offer moves similar to those used in the adult classes.
“It’s pure fitness and strength and fun,” Craig told the CBC. “I mean kids love climbing trees. They will climb anything.”
But not everyone thinks pole dancing is just a pint-sized playdate.
Child psychologist Dr. Derek Swain tells CTV News he doesn’t see a problem with pole dancing purely as a physical activity, but warns it could cause bullying and even increase the likelihood of girls becoming strippers when they’re older because of its ties with the sex industry.
“Sometimes these kinds of activities are more of an interest to the parent than they are to the kids,” he said.
(FOXNEWS) The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.
The U.N.’s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an
“informed approach to effective sex, relationships” and HIV education that they say is essential for “all young people.”
The U.N. insists the program is “age appropriate,” but critics say it’s exposing kids to sex far too early, and offers up abstract ideas — like “transphobia” — they might not even understand.
“At that age they should be learning about … the proper name of certain parts of their bodies,” said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, “certainly not about masturbation.”
Turner was disturbed by UNESCO’s plans to explain to children as young as nine about the safety of legal abortions, and to advocate and “promote the right to and access to safe abortion” for everyone over the age of 15.
“This is absurd,” she told FOXNews.com.
The UNESCO report, called “International Guidelines for Sexuality Education,” separates children into four age groups: 5-to-8-year-olds, 9-to-12-year-olds, 12-to-15-year-olds and 15-to-18-year-olds.
Under the U.N.’s voluntary sex-ed regime, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that private parts “can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”
By the time they’re 9 years old, they’ll learn about “positive and negative effects of ‘aphrodisiacs,” and wrestle with the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.”
At 12, they’ll learn the “reasons for” abortions — but they’ll already have known about their safety for three years. When they’re 15, they’ll be exposed to direct “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”
Child health experts say they are wary of teaching about the sticky topic of abortion, but stress that as long as messages stay age-appropriate, educating kids at a younger age helps better steer them into adulthood.
“The adults are more leery of [early sex-ed] than the kids are,” said Dr. Jennifer Hartstein, a child psychiatrist in New York. “Our own fears sometimes prevent us from being as open and honest with our kids as possible.”
Hartstein, however, who didn’t see much harm in explaining basic concepts that kids of all ages will have questions about, was baffled by some of the ideas the U.N. hoped to introduce to kids as young as 5 years old, who will be taught about “gender roles, stereotypes and gender-based violence.”
“I want to know how you teach that to a 5-year-old,” Hartstein told FOXNews.com.
Despite those challenges, the U.N. insists that “in a world affected by HIV and AIDS … there is an imperative to give children and young people the knowledge, skills and values to understand and make informed decisions.”
UNESCO officials said the guidelines were “co-authored by two leading experts in the field of sexuality education” — Dr. Doug Kirby, an adolescent sexuality expert, and Nanette Ecker, the former director of international education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Their report was based on a “rigorous review” of sex-ed literature, “drawing upon 87 studies from around the world,” said Mark Richmond, director of UNESCO’s Division for the Coordination of U.N. Priorities in Education, in an e-mailed statement.
Richmond defended teaching about masturbation as “age-appropriate” because even in early childhood, “children are known to be curious about their bodies.” Their lessons, he added, would hopefully help kids “develop a more complex understanding of sexual behaviour” as they grow into adults.
But Michelle Turner, of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, said that such roles should be left up to parents, and worried that children were being exposed to too much information too soon.
“Why can’t kids be kids anymore?” she said.
(INTEL WARS) Is a lifetime of monogamy fast becoming an impossible dream, and an until-death marriage agreement nothing but an unfair trap, sprung by your past self onto your future self? Mexico City likely will test out a system in which matrimonial contracts run for two years, as a solution to the problems associated with messy divorces and drawn-out unhappy unions. Reuters reports:
Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.
Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.
The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.
“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill. Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.
Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.
The church criticized the proposed change. “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage,” said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. “It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.”
By C. Patience Summers
Amongst many other issues with the Department of Human and Social Services in North Dakota, special mention must be made of their Child Protection Services record keeping program (Like the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System). It’s aptly named “FRAME” and does not seem to even come from any sort of an acronym.
The complimentary kicker in this situation is that their mental health record keeping system is called “ROPE,” although ROPE is an acronym.
North Dakota still records everything about everyone and their spokesperson for the department of Human Services tries to “dance around” the way public monies are spent at the officials’ discretion in the following video:
Oddly enough, they still retain the same amount of information about everybody as they used to under the “Legacy” system, but it’s separated and more categorized now in a sort of umbrella system called “Oracle”. To follow, is their PDF defining the different names of systems they have for keeping records/files on civillians:
By C. Patience Summers
Following several interviews with state Departments of Human and Social Services spokespeople, it was leaked that there was a flaw in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS): duplicate records on single individuals.
SACWIS is a file, or system of files, that contain record of an individual’s foster care record, their food stamp and public medical care history and any welfare or Child Protection Services allegations (false, unfounded, sustained and anonymous complaints alike).
A representative of the Department of Social Services in Utah said, “It’s not like there’s just one file,” and went on to explain that any allegation or social services record gets put into this SACWIS system and intake social workers, or whomever is researching the parent of a child, have to match these complaints against actual people.
For example: in area “B”, there are numerous complaints against the “Smith” family. Some of these complaints could be in this SACWIS system under the name “Smithe” and there could even be numerous families with the “Smith” name.
Then, the social worker must match the other identifying aspects of the family to the SACWIS system to form a case against the family for removal of the children in family court.
At it’s genesis, the plan for this system was to have this system up and running, connecting all states and run every family through this system prior to releasing their newborns from the hospital to ensure the infant would be going home to an “appropriate” home and family.
Currently, only children in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), who coincidentally qualify for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) funding for being premature or sick in some way, are automatically being checked through this system in most hospitals because the funding simply isn’t there to run every child as of yet.
If one wants to see the paperwork a social worker must fax a hospital to put a hold on a newborn, visit http://federaljack.com and search “Washington Social Services Exposed” and view the documents and records leaked there. There is a generic, fill-in-the-blank form social workers fill in to place an unconstitutional hold on a wanted newborn.
At this point, some states, like Utah, have declined integration into this national system, but still copy the form of record keeping into their own SACWIS.
How easy would it be to crumble this system if there were millions of complaints made against similar families than the existent ones? Could it be made like sifting through any local phone book? The investigation continues.