Noncustodial parent visitation rights bill signed into law
I read about this on this site: http://womenformen.org/2014/06/05/noncustodial-parent-visitation-rights-bill-signed-into-law/
OKLAHOMA CITY – Law-abiding noncustodial parents will no longer have to deal with having their visitation rights ignored or violated thanks to legislation signed into law Tuesday.
Senate Bill 1612, by Sen. Ron Sharp and Rep. Jon Echols, will ensure that custodial parents honor court-ordered visitation schedules for noncustodial parents or face punishment.
“This bill is about holding custodial parents more responsible for honoring visitation schedules. Unfortunately, the visitation rights of law-abiding noncustodial parents are continually trampled because they simply can’t afford the court costs of taking the custodial parent to court after every visitation violation,” said Sharp, R-Shawnee.
“This bill keeps noncustodial parents from having to go through the hassle and expense of getting a lawyer when the custody schedule isn’t upheld by the custodial parent,” he continued. “They can simply fill out a form at the courthouse detailing the visitation schedule violations and the courts will reevaluate the visitation schedule and punish the violator if needs be.”
SB 1612 modifies the procedure for enforcing visitation orders of the court. It requires any order of the court providing for visitation to contain a provision stating that the custodial parent has a duty to facilitate visitation of a minor child with the noncustodial parent.
In addition, the measure directs a court to award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to the prevailing party on a motion for enforcement of visitation rights.
Echols, who is a family law attorney, says violations of court-ordered visitation by custodial parents are growing at an alarming rate but the noncustodial parents typically cannot afford to fight for their rights.
He also noted that a majority of District Attorney officees in Oklahoma have a division dedicated to securing child support payments from noncustodial parents, and he’s pleased to finally see more focus being given to protecting the visitation rights of noncustodial parents.
“Currently, if a noncustodial parent is late on child support, they can face fines and jail time. Our state takes not paying child support very serious but we also need to be just as serious about custodial parents following court orders and allowing the other parent to see their children,” said Echols.
“A common problem we see is that noncustodial parents usually can’t afford an attorney to fight for their visitation rights after having paid all of their child support and other support obligations,” he added. “No one should have their rights violated because they can’t afford to defend themselves. This bill will give noncustodial parents the ability to fight for their visitation rights without having to worry about the expense.”
The bill allows the noncustodial parent to directly file a claim to the District Court, similar to completing a small claims form. The court will then decide whether or not an attorney is necessary to restore the visitation rights.
The bill provides a template of the form that noncustodial parents can use.
“It’s emotionally devastating when one parent keeps a child away from their other parent especially because of past animosities. Those emotional issues aren’t the child’s fault and children shouldn’t be used as pawns following messy divorces,” said Sharp. “Both parents have a right to be a part of their children’s lives. This is an effort ensure both parents act responsibly and in the best interest of their children by following court orders.”
SB 1612 was strongly supported by numerous district attorneys, family law attorneys and community leaders from around the state.
The bill will go into effect November 1, 2014.
For more great information, check out this site:
Judge Orders Deployed US Sailor To Attend Custody Hearing Or Lose Daughter, Face Arrest
Why would anyone be surprised by this?
This is a daily occurrence in mother court, I mean “family court.” I’m just happy this HORRIBLE place is being exposed on national TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyRr3q1vp8A
A sailor serving underseas on a submarine is locked in a fight a world away to keep custody of his 6-year-old girl.
Navy submariner Matthew Hindes is stationed on a submarine in the Pacific. But he’s been ordered to appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday in a custody battle with his ex-wife Angela involving their daughter, Kaylee.
Hindes was given permanent custody of Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from Angela’s home by child protective services. Kaylee has been living with Hindes’ wife Benita-Lynn — her step-mother — in Washington state while Hindes is deployed aboard a nuclear submarine in the Pacific Ocean.
Despite Hindes’ assignment, a judge has ordered Hindes to appear in court or face contempt.
Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days” to defendants serving their country.
The judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagreed, adding, “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”
Modern feminism has got it wrong about men
Today’s feminism teaches women to see themselves as victims and men as perverts, bullies and misogynists, says Natasha Devon
An excerpt from this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10831043/Modern-feminism-has-got-it-wrong-about-men.html
Today’s feminism teaches women to see themselves as victims and men as perverts, bullies and misogynists, says Natasha Devon
Earlier this year I was asked to present at a feminist society event in one of the UK’s largest and most prestigious universities. I espoused the view that I must be really lucky, because if recent feminist musings in the press and online are to be believed, misogyny is absolutely rife, yet I have very rarely encountered it.
I’ve had the odd blustering huffer-puffer over the years who has clearly thought himself superior, but I’ve always presumed that’s because of my comparative age and slightly avant garde fashion sense, rather than the simple fact of my vagina. (Whilst it isn’t right to form assumptions about someone based on these criteria, it does take the issue out of the realms of feminism.) These instances have, however, been incredibly few and far between. As for the men I regularly spend time with – my male colleagues and friends, boyfriend, dad, my three brothers and numerous uncles and cousins – they’ve never given me any cause to suspect they’re anything but pro-gender equality.
At the end of the session, one of the Society’s senior members said: “It’s great that you don’t think there’s any misogyny in your world, but I think if you talked to these men for long enough you’d find there were some pretty sinister ideas about women buried somewhere beneath the surface.”
In that moment, I suddenly realised why so many aspects of the modern feminist movement in Britain irritate me so much. Don’t misunderstand, I’d consider myself a feminist and I’m all for structural changes which ensure equal treatment of the sexes – the types that are working to ensure we have an equal number of female MPs and laws to prevent female genital mutilation, for example. But cultural “feminist” changes, the types that insist lads mags, Page 3 and wolf-whistling are automatically offensive and should therefore be scrapped from the public consciousness, I have always struggled to comprehend. For, at their crux is the notion that men are either genetically or socially conditioned to be evil. This explains why relatively harmless acts – an admiring glance, a whistle, a propensity for lads mags – are imbued with such weighty significance, often lazily labelled as “rapey”.
If a man looks at me, I infer he’s doing it for the exact same reason a woman would – because he finds me interesting to look at. If a man whistles at me, I take it as the compliment I believe it was intended to be. If I see a man looking at a female glamour model, I suppose nothing more than he is looking at her because a naked woman is pretty much universally aesthetically pleasing. I have always assumed that Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines transpired to be the most downloaded single of all time in the UK because it’s well produced and ridiculously catchy, not because huge swathes of the male population delight in the notion that men “know women want it” and use the lyrics as their life mantra. Call me naive if you must.
I’ve become increasingly bemused by the “Twitter activists” whose “feminist” world view, however much they try to disguise it, necessitates a dim view of mankind. Some, for example, have taken to posting pictures of men looking at Page 3 on the train, with captions branding these individuals “creepy”, “vile” and “disgusting” without any sort of meaningful explanation. These women have made a broad assumption about what their male subjects are thinking – based on we know not what – and despise the product of their own projections.
——
Today’s feminism teaches British women to see themselves as victims and victims cannot exist without a villain, in this instance – men. In order for this thesis to have any kind of logic, feminists have made sweeping, inaccurate judgments about an entire demographic, based on nothing more than their gender. Ironically, the exact practice they claim to be fighting.
Gender equality requires co-operation on all sides. As a humanist, I’d like to see today’s feminists give men a bit more credit – they might just be surprised.
Read the rest HERE
Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex
You’re in the heat of the moment, rounding third, but then you must stop and ask, Can I have your verbal or written consent to have sex with you?
Sounds quite unspontaneous. But a law co-authored by L.A. state Sen. Kevin de Leon would have state-run college campuses establish an “affirmative consent” standard for its students.
According to the language of the bill, SB 967, students who want to have sex must essentially establish that there has been “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.” In fact, the legislation says, …
… It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.
No more making sexy faces and sounds for you. You’ve got to verbalize. Or get it on paper.
Read more HERE
Victimizing The Accused? Obama’s Campus Sexual Assault Guidelines Raise Concerns
An excerpt from this article: http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/05/05/due-process-and-sexual-assault-wendy-kaminer
“Not Alone,” the White House entitled its task force report on campus sexual assaults. “Believe the Victim,” the report might as well have been called. It reflects a presumption of guilt in sexual assault cases that practically obliterates the due process rights of the accused. Students leveling accusations of assault are automatically described as “survivors” or “victims” (not alleged victims or complaining witnesses), implying that their accusations are true.
When you categorically presume the good faith, infallible memories and entirely objective perspectives of self-identified victims, you dispense with the need for cumbersome judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and an adversary model of justice. Thus the task force effectively prohibits cross-examination of complaining witnesses: “The parties should not be allowed to cross-examine each other,” the report advises, denying the fundamental right to confront your accuser.
Every student accused of a crime or disciplinary infraction has an equal right to due process and fair adjudication of charges.
Alleged victims are supposed to be protected from “hurtful questioning.” The impulse to protect actual victims from the ordeal of a cross-examination by their attackers is laudable. But by barring cross-examination, you also protect students who are mistaken or lying, and you victimize (even traumatize) students being falsely accused.School officials are also encouraged to substitute a “single investigator” model for a hearing process, which seems a prescription for injustice. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education points out, pursuant to this model, “a sole administrator would be empowered to serve as detective, judge and jury, affording the accused no chance to challenge his or her accuser’s testimony.”
These “reforms” exacerbate an already dangerously unreliable approach to evaluating charges of assault. In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidelines requiring colleges and universities to employ a minimal “preponderance of evidence” standard in cases involving allegations of harassment or violence. This is the lowest possible standard of proof, which merely requires discerning a 50.01 percent chance that a charge is more likely than not to be true. It facilitates findings of guilt, which will be merited in some cases, and not others. For students wrongly accused, the consequences of a guilty finding can be as dire as a not guilty finding for students actually victimized.
Read more HERE
