Author: Super User

February 25, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

Joan Meier, are you paying attention?  Are your fellow travelers in the movement to asperse the concept of parental alienation? 

Here’s yet another authoritative article by a psychiatrist, Dr. Christine Adams, who’s been a clinician for 40 years and a forensic scientist for 20 (Psychology Today, 2/18/20).  She’s worked and written extensively about parental alienation.  She knows whereof she speaks.

Parental alienation begins long before divorce occurs…

With the birth of a child, each parent forms a bond, or attachment, to the baby. For the alienating parent this bond is based on the parent having his or her needs met by the child. Mostly these are emotional needs. The relationship reverses from one that meets the needs of the child to one that meets the parent’s needs.

In short, the seeds of alienation are planted long before divorce occurs or is even contemplated.  They’re planted in the fertile soil that is the psyche of the future alienator who is emotionally needy.  The child learns to meet those needs and, when the process of divorce begins, the pressure on the child ramps up.

When divorce begins, the alienator puts more pressure than usual on the child to muster lots of support to this parent. The child finds the situation difficult. He or she is unable to resist this parent’s emotional pull for symbiosis––enmeshed thoughts and emotions that go along with what the alienator desires. The child becomes the emotional caretaker and the parent the emotional care consumer.

And that inverse role of the child as caregiver to the parent exerts a gravitational pull into the alienator’s orbit.

The child parrots the alienating parent’s venom about the other parent, the targeted parent. Eventually the child believes the alienator’s viewpoint because to support this parent, the child must do so.

As I’ve said before, the imperative for the child to believe the lies and distortions of the alienating parent about the targeted parent can result in a seriously damaging conflict between illusion and reality.  The child sees the targeted parent and finds love or, in any case, no particularly bad behavior, but must integrate those observations with what the alienator says.  Often, the need to care for the alienator prevails over observed facts.  That conflict between what is known and what is required to be believed can result in serious mental health problems for children, particularly very young ones.

Adams provides what is perhaps the key to the personality of the alienating parent.

In [our book] Living On Automatic [Homer B. Martin and I] write about the childhoods of people in impotent roles, the roles of alienators. We discovered they are reared in such a way that they believe and behave as if they are helpless and must be inert in the way they conduct relationships. By age three they are emotionally conditioned in this impotent role. They go through life expecting little of themselves. Instead they are skilled at expecting and manipulating others to gratify them by meeting their needs, desires, and expectations.

The hallmark experience of their childhoods is that they are overindulged and catered to by almost everyone. This emotional conditioning affects the ways their emotions are displayed, the thoughts they have about themselves and others, and the behaviors they show throughout their lives. In parental alienation they are superb at demanding and manipulating their own children to get the constant emotional support they crave and the revenge they seek on the other parent.

Significantly, Adams’ first prescription for stopping alienating behavior is the very thing Meier and others attempt to call into question.

What is the best way to get an alienating parent to stop the alienation?

A court order for the children to live with the targeted parent.

Recall that Meier and the others who seek to discredit the very concept of PA sometimes suggest that courts that fail to honor alienators’ demands are, in some way, per se suspect.  In fact, removing children from the home of the alienator is often necessary to reverse the toxic results of the alienation.

Finally, Adams has some harsh words for courts and their ability to recognize and appropriately handle cases of alienation.

When caught up in parental alienation, parents seek help from the court system to sort out what is best for their children. Courts handle this with wide variation in all the countries of the world. Mostly they handle these situations poorly and make egregious judgment errors in their legal decisions as to custody and visitation arrangements.

Legal and judicial professionals are not trained in the complex interpersonal issues of either family life or divorce—who does what psychologically and to whom, and how it affects children. This lack of knowledge is compounded because courts rarely appoint highly trained and skilled mental health counselors who regularly work with parental alienation to assess and help make decisions for involved families.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention something that Adams also doesn’t mention – that PA is not a gendered phenomenon.  Mothers do it, but so do fathers.  Adams doesn’t mention it because she takes for granted that alienating behavior knows no sex. 

Meier, et al often claim explicitly or implicitly that PA is something dreamed up by fathers to deny “protective mothers” custody of children.  It’s an overtly false claim, but they make it anyway.  Such are the ways of ideologues with nothing to back up their points of view.  They always seem to collide with people like Adams who are scrupulous and experienced observers, care about children’s well-being and let the facts lead them to sensible conclusions.

February 24, 2020 by Robert Franklin, Member, National Board of Directors

On March 24^th, the Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case with the potential to severely erode the rights of biological parents (Lifesite News, 2/11/20).

The father, C.J.C. and the mother, D.A.W. had a daughter who remains unnamed in the legal documents.  The two parents split up and agreed to an almost equal parenting time arrangement.  D.A.W. began a relationship with her boyfriend, J.D. with whom she lived for about 11 months.  So the child spent about 5 ½ months of that time with her mother and J.D. and the same amount of time with her father.  There has never been either evidence or an allegation that C.J.C. is anything but an entirely fit and loving father.  When the child was four, D.A.W. was killed in a car accident.

Soon, D.A.W.’s parents filed suit seeking custodial rights to the child.  Eventually, and after almost three years of legal filings and counter-filings, that suit was finally dismissed.  As the U.S. Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville made clear, non-parent family members don’t have standing to assert custodial interests when a child’s parents are fit to care for it as C.J.C. clearly is.

What Troxel didn’t do is explicitly address the potential rights of non-relatives.  It didn’t do so of course because there was no such issue before it.

Texas statute law contains a gap that’s reflected by the Troxel precedent.  It allows standing to non-relatives to seek custodial rights to a child.  That is, the law contains no provision that non-parents can seek custodial rights only if the parents are unfit in some way.

Based on that, the trial court not only granted J.D. standing to seek custodial rights, it awarded him the status of possessory conservator (in popular parlance, non-custodial parent status).  Mom’s boyfriend was granted unsupervised time with the child at the expense of C.J.C.’s time with her.  Plus, as time goes on, J.D. will receive more and more time with the child, again reducing C.J.C.’s time.

Needless to say, C.J.C. is contesting the matter and he has several organizations, such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, going to bat on his behalf.

To put it mildly, Judge Sherry Shipman’s decision in the case should be overturned and rapidly.  Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court should take the opportunity to make clear that, contrary to Shipman’s bizarre ruling, Texas parents don’t come into court on an equal footing with every boyfriend or girlfriend, nanny or next-door neighbor who claims to have developed a relationship with a child.  It needs to state loudly and clearly what a century of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence supports – that parents are the natural guardians of children, that families take precedence over other forms of childcare and that the thinking in Troxel extends beyond a child’s grandparents to non-relatives like J.D.

It also needs to instruct the Texas Legislature to amend the applicable parts of the Family Code to bring them into compliance with Troxel’s requirement that the state has no business interfering in a parent’s care of a child absent a showing of unfitness on the part of that parent.

Failure to do those things will open the door to deeply pernicious attacks on the family, children’s rights to their parents and parents’ rights to their children.  This is a good opportunity for the Texas high court to do the right thing and help preserve the family values we hear so much about.

February 21, 2020 by Lynda Steele, Furnishing Fatherhood

The reaction to a simple act of kindness from a community of people who systematically do not see support is a humbling experience. Reaching out to a father to say “I do this because you matter,” even though I do not know him personally, is important to both of us. I fully understand that, to their children, they matter as much as anything in the world. That is why I provide furnishings for homes for non-custodial fathers.

The typical response I get from men and fathers when we meet up is “Wow, I didn’t think you were real.” With shock and watery eyes they approach me and follow up with “It just seems like no one cares about dads.” Most of these men, by the time we find each other, are emotionally exhausted and half expecting Furnishing Fatherhood and the support it offers to be a scam. When we finally connect and they are provided the items they need for their homes and children, emotions flow freely.  They tell me how much they care about their children, as if they are used to having to explain themselves. I greet them all with a big smile a warm hug and continue to remind them that I do this because their fatherhood matters. I reassure them that I can see how much they love their children and in that moment they begin to feel like they can breathe again and that they aren’t alone. I could have never imagined that showing up to father’s home with a car seat or box of clothes for their children could bring such a huge sigh of relief. It doesn’t take someone with a lot of money or resources to help, it only takes someone with compassion and willingness to put in the work.

This past Christmas I placed a post on Facebook looking for non-custodial parents to help during the holidays. One dad in particular made a huge impression on me. He is a father to three little boys who must be only in his mid-twenties. We met at my truck in which I had a huge box of toys for his boys. He walked “jaw-dropped” towards me and immediately broke down as soon as he got to me. Tearing up he just said, “I didn’t think you were real. No one cares about dads”. Wide eyed, trying to hold back my own tears I looked at him and said “Well I care about dads”. I put the box down on the hood of my truck, gave him a hug and said, “There is a whole community of people who care about fathers, but you have to reach out to us so we know you exist.” He hugged me back and agreed.

I have been advocating and helping fathers for little over a year now.  Every day I check the Furnishing Fatherhood email (furnishingfatherhood@gmail.com) and without fail the first message in a new correspondence from a father looking for support is “Is this real?”  To this day, after a year of providing furnishings to homes in Oklahoma, fathers are in disbelief that Furnishing Fatherhood exists. It doesn’t matter how many different social media posts are made letting fathers know we are here and that they matter. What truly changes lives is actual human connection, taking the time to reach out to fathers, meet them, sit with them and be a source of support. It’s vital to these men to know that they are important and their fatherhood isn’t invisible or something that can be replaced or overlooked. That is what I believe is making a difference in my community. 

Every time we provide furnishings for a home for a father, help with gifts for the holidays or for their children’s birthdays it is very important that I give the items to the fathers without their children around. It is less important that we receive recognition from assisting these fathers and more important that their children have a sense of security that their dads can provide for them. Furnishing Fatherhood helps return dignity to these fathers and security back to their children. We don’t look for recognition, we seek to build up and support fatherhood. Knowing that we have positively affected these homes and that fathers know that we are real and they aren’t alone is what matters the most.

If you have never heard of Furnishing Fatherhood and are reading about us for the very first time, know that your fatherhood is vitally important, you aren’t alone and we are real. I will leave you with the last words I tell all dad’s when I meet them. “If no one has told you lately, your fatherhood matters.”

Lynda Steele is the founder of Furnishing Fatherhood. They seek to help fathers who have gone through a divorce or separation furnish their homes and provide necessities so they can remain active parents in their children’s lives.

February 20, 2020 by Lynda Steele, Furnishing Fatherhood

Laws help to protect our rights, liberties and freedoms, but they need to be improved to protect parental rights and children’s rights. That said,… 

What law could be created to ensure that a divorced parent will have to share the child’s possessions and needs between the two homes? What law could be created to make people treat each other amicably? What law would make sure a parent who is going through a divorce or separation doesn’t end up homeless?

No law can or will do those things. The answers to those questions lie in resources and support. We have to look beyond laws to allow people to do the right things and create solutions that empower people to live better lives and rebuild following divorce. 

Furnishing Fatherhood is a unique solution to some of the many problems that beset non-custodial parents. It’s a building block that provides necessary resources that are too often lacking for non-custodial fathers.  My organization serves non-custodial mothers too, of course, but fathers often experience divorce and child custody issues differently from mothers.

There is a wide range of resources for non-custodial mothers, single mothers, incarcerated mothers, mothers with addiction, etc. In fact, mothers with some sort of visitation and custody qualify for resources as single mothers simply because they are not married. Fathers however are marginalized.  That often means they’re overlooked in the provision of resources and assistance. As but one example, there are over 32,000 registered nonprofits organizations in Oklahoma alone. Not one of them helped non-custodial fathers, until Furnishing Fatherhood was created. 

I challenge you to look at your communities through a different lens. Evaluate the resources and assistance through the eyes of a non-custodial father, incarcerated father, father with addiction, a single father, or even a teen father and see how a mother in these circumstances would qualify.  Would a father in the same position have the same opportunities?

February 19, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

The horrifying case of Dr. John Cox is far from over (NBC News, 2/6/20).  I first wrote about it here and here.

Cox is the Milwaukee emergency room physician who made the mistake of taking his one-month-old adopted daughter to the Children’s Wisconsin hospital due to his concern that he might have inadvertently harmed her.  Cox had fallen asleep with the baby beside him and, when he awoke, he had rolled partially onto her.  The child exhibited no pain or distress, but to be on the safe side and after consulting his wife who’s also a doctor, he took her to the hospital.

There the child was the subject of a string of medical errors, some obvious, some less so.  One physician’s assistant insisted that a birth mark was a bruise.  A child abuse pediatrician decided that a bruise on the sole of the child’s foot was suspicious for abuse when in fact it had been caused by a pin prick done at the hospital for diagnostic purposes.  In all, some 15 doctors who either examined the child at the time or who reviewed her treatment later have said that no abuse occurred.  One called the proceedings against Cox “preposterous.”

But, based on those medical errors and the insistence of child abuse pediatricians, the baby was taken by child protective services and has been separated from her adoptive parents for eight months, i.e. about 90% of her life.  Incredibly, Dr. Cox has been criminally charged with abusing the child, a charge that requires the showing of intentional injury, something that no one appears to claim happened.

The latest is that, apparently scenting the acrid smell of civil liability, Children’s Wisconsin has taken a defensive posture about the case.

[T]hree doctors who attended the meeting [with hospital administrators] said they worry the investigation won’t be truly independent.

So far, the message from senior administrators has been, “trust the system, trust the process,” according to physicians who attended the meetings.

“It’s felt very much like damage control,” one doctor said. “Every step of the way, it feels like they are just working to minimize corporate liability.”

But doctors there are working to make future investigations into possible child abuse more in line with medical standards and less in thrall to child abuse pediatricians who tend to work hand-in-glove with state child protective officials.

Several physicians told administrators during a series of staff “listening sessions” held in response to the reporting that they had serious concerns about the work of the hospital’s child abuse specialists, and some asked for an external investigation of their practices, according to four Children’s Wisconsin doctors who attended the meetings and spoke to a reporter on the condition of anonymity.

Numerous physicians from across the hospital have spoken out at the meetings, attendees said, including cardiologists, neonatologists and infectious disease specialists.

At one internal meeting this week, some Children’s Wisconsin doctors told administrators from the Medical College of Wisconsin — which employs physicians who practice at the hospital — that without swift policy changes, they would hesitate to bring their own children to the hospital following accidental injuries, fearing that a medical mistake or overreaction could lead Child Protective Services to break their families apart.

That’s precisely what I worried about in my first two pieces on the Cox case.  The entire theory supporting the existence of child protective agencies and child abuse doctors is that they’ll help keep children from harm.  But day after day, the news brings us stories of the most outrageous overreach by those state agencies.  More recently, a series of articles by Mike Hixenbaugh for NBC and the Houston Chronicle, has focused on so-called child abuse pediatricians, who, like CPS, often find abuse where there is none.

Given all that, sensible parents may well hesitate to- or refrain altogether from- taking injured children to doctors for fear that doing so may be the last thing they do as parents.  Indeed, that’s exactly the conclusion Dr. Cox has drawn.

“In hindsight,” Cox said in January, “taking her to our own hospital was the single most harmful decision that we made for our baby.”

That’s not what anyone wants to say about their experience with the health-care system.  It’s a message that, I suspect, many parents have heard loudly and clearly.  In short, overreach by CPS and child abuse physicians may be making matters worse, not better.

Meanwhile, Children’s Wisconsin is under the gun.

It turns out that hospital administrators have been stonewalling calls for reform almost from the day the baby was taken from Cox and his wife, Dr. Sadie Dobrozsi.

But documents reviewed by NBC News show that senior hospital executives were made aware of alleged mistakes by the child abuse specialists in Cox’s case more than six months ago. At that time, administrators repeatedly rebuffed calls for an external investigation.

Other Children’s Wisconsin physicians said they also brought concerns about the practices of child abuse specialists to hospital leaders in recent months, according to interviews with more than a dozen members of the medical staff. But the physicians said no action was taken.

But now that stone wall is breaking down.

Cox’s story has consumed the local media in Milwaukee, where an AM talk-radio host recently took calls for more than an hour from listeners who said they were outraged that a baby could be taken from her parents based on questionable medical opinions. Doctors from across the country have rebuked the hospital for its role in the allegations against Cox, including some who’ve written letters to hospital board members. And late last week, a top state lawmaker publicly called for an investigation of the state’s handling of the case.

So the hospital has agreed to an external investigation of what happened in Dr. Cox’s case.  Exactly who performs that investigation and how remain unknown.

But beyond the outcome of that investigation, we can only hope that justice prevails in Cox’s criminal case and that he’s acquitted of the charges.  Assuming that happens, he and his wife need to bring a lawsuit against the hospital and the child abuse pediatricians who’ve done so much to damage a little girl and the adoptive parents who wanted only to love and care for her.

The case goes on and I’ll continue to update it as event unfold.  But I do want to mention one last thing that I love about Hixenbaugh’s articles.  Scroll to the top of the article.  There, unobtrusively off to the left of the headline, in tiny print, are the first words of the Hippocratic Oath, “first do no wrong.”

They’re words child abuse doctors often seem to forget.  They’re words CPS officials should be required to remember.

February 19, 2020 by Linda Reutzel, National Parents Organization of Missouri

A clear, responsible and elegantly written maintenance policy reform has been filed by Senator Ed Emery in the Missouri Senate.  His legislation, SB 961, updates an out-of-date law that was last substantially updated in the early 1970’s. 

Senator Emery’s bill would set durational limits and allow for a rehabilitative plan to get training or degrees for employment, and allow maintenance to be awarded for a party to bridge to a secure lifestyle; however, a judge could over-rule the limits or terminate a plan when it was determined that it was not being implemented. When a judge does not follow the limits, the court would be required to put the reason why in writing.The need for this provision, and indeed, the overall bill, is simple:

Current law is ambiguous, lacks definition, and both payors and recipients cite instances where court-room decisions are arbitrary and unfair so that similarly situated parties are not treated equally under the law.  Both genders face the potential for an unfair outcome.  It is also simple common-sense that in today’s courtrooms judges are reluctant to provide for maintenance reform to bridge to an independent lifestyle,because once a maintenance order is granted, it is hard to end. 

Without bright lines and more uniform outcomes, it is understandably difficult for both parties to enter into reasonable settlement agreements.  Instead the current law enables repeated litigation with inconsistent results.  This hurts children who suffer from watching their parents return to court. Inevitably, children are the collateral damage. Their parents struggle with the animosity and anger that results from repeatedly hitting the financial and emotional wound from ending a marriage.  This prevents families from moving on with their lives, and causes deep rifts.

However, Google “maintenance law in Missouri,”  and you will see some family law firms touting concerns with prior legislative reforms that have been before the Missouri Assembly.  While some lawyers agree that the law needs reforming because there is a difference between following the law and making sure a client is well-served, some appear to be comfortable with the system and resistant to reform.

In the midst of all of this, Senator Emery’s bill stands out as a consensus measure  in the 2020 legislative session in Missouri.  Of note, this legislation, while affirming the needs of families, also ensures both men and women are treated fairly and equitably under the law. Women are continuing to enter the workforce and fighting for financial independence and equal pay.  Other women choose to work within the home and these choices, while different,  should both be respected, especially under the law: Women should not fear that they will suffer negative ramifications down the road during the legal process, should a marriage come to an end. 

Senator Emery’s legislation affirms both the payee and the payor, which also has a positive impact on the children.  Specifically,SB 961 creates three categories of spousal maintenance orders:

“Bridge” maintenance orders: May be awarded for a marriage having a duration of less than 7 years, for no more than 2 years.

“Rehabilitative” maintenance orders:  May be awarded to assist a party in developing or redeveloping workforce skills and a career plan and shall not exceed four years.

“Durational” maintenance orders:  May be awarded to provide for the needs and necessities of a party . A durational maintenance order shall not remain in effect for more than: (1) 5 years, if the marriage lasted 7 to less than 10 years; (2) 7 years, if the marriage lasted 10 to less than 17 years: and (3) 10 years, if the marriage lasted 17 or more years. A Judge can put in writing his or her reason for modifying an order. *

This bill updates an old law in a common-sense manner to restore fairness and clarity.  Children will be better served, adults will have closure, specificity and the necessary financial support, judges will have a clearer law to interpret, and as for the lawyers… while some family court attorneys are fully on board, let’s all do our part to reassure the others that they will not go out of business.

*Source: Missouri Senate Research

February 18, 2020 by Lori Grover, NCM,  Chair of Rhode Island NPO and Divorce Mediator

The emotional reality of ending a marriage is never easy. Whether a divorce is a mutual decision or made by one spouse, coming to terms with the end of a marriage and processing the loss is different for everyone. There isn’t a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to grieve but certain behaviors can signal the existence of a bigger issue. Anyone who has been divorced, or knows someone who has, understands the roller coaster of emotions that effect the ability to think and function. Most divorcing people manage to work through the emotional and logistical challenges their divorce presents and in time, begin to focus on rebuilding their lives. But there are others who function differently; they’re driven by retribution, control, and perpetual conflicts. These are divorces involving high conflict personalities (HCPs).

The irrational, explosive and downright outrageous behaviors exhibited by high conflict personalities in divorce are exhausting and escalate quickly. For many husbands and wives, divorcing a high conflict personality marks the beginning of a long road; one they don’t understand, and through no fault of their own, are ill-equipped to deal with and manage. As the daughter of a high conflict parent, I’m familiar with the confusion and chaos these personalities create and the havoc they wreak on your life. Over the years I’ve had numerous clients express similar frustration over their spouse’s behavior once their divorce started. Many acknowledged their spouse’s difficult personality but were confused by how their divorce exposed a side they not only didn’t understand but found hard to believe. Experts agree that anger, frustration, denial, and fear are all part of the grieving process, and many divorcing people exhibit those behaviors at some point during the process. In most cases, those feelings stabilize over time but for high conflict personalities, their divorce is a wound that never heals.

Narcissism and Borderline Personality Disorder, which fall under the category of anti-social behavior, are the two most common personality disorders in divorce and present numerous, ongoing challenges, from negotiating financial settlements, to maintaining even minimally civil relationships for co-parenting. Most legal professionals lack the training to recognize high conflict personality disorders which can make a difficult and sometimes dangerous situation worse.  That in turn can condemn innocent spouses to years of on-going conflicts and putting out one legal fire after another.     

The outcome of a high conflict divorce is heavily dependent upon how it’s handled and the skill of the professionals involved. Financial solvency, the ability to co-parent, and quality of life are all dictated by the way these divorces are facilitated and managed. Lack of understanding, legal aggression and inadequate preparation all have long-term consequences which can entangle former spouses in abuse, custody battles and financial hardship long after their divorce is final. If you know or suspect you have a high conflict spouse, it’s important to understand whom you are dealing with, surround yourself with experienced professionals and a good support system, and prepare before you begin any legal action. These steps won’t change the personality you’re dealing with, but they will make you better prepared for the bumpy road of divorcing a high-conflict personality.

This is the first in my series of posts relating to HCPs. In my next post, I’ll discuss the expectations of high conflict personalities in divorce and how those expectations complicate financial negotiations and settlements.

Lori A. Grover is a Nationally Certified Divorce Mediator in private practice in Rhode Island.   

February 17, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

Once more a man who’s not the father of a child has been forced to pay child support for it.  That’s true despite the fact that all parties acknowledge that the man isn’t the child’s father and he apparently has no relationship with it.  The case demonstrates the inanity and injustice of failing to require mothers to accurately identify the fathers of the children to which they give birth.

In April of 2017, Abriel Gonzalez gave birth to a child.  She named Jonathan Ortiz as the father even though she knew he might not be.  Ortiz too had questions about his paternity, but, at the hospital when the baby was born, Gonzalez threatened that, if he didn’t sign an affidavit acknowledging paternity, she wouldn’t allow him to see the child.  So he did.

That was a mistake on his part, because Indiana law states that, once such an affidavit is signed, it constitutes conclusive proof of paternity.  However, it can be challenged in court within 60 days of signing and afterward if the man’s signature was procured by “fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact.”

Ortiz got DNA testing conducted that proved he isn’t the father, but Gonzalez insisted that he is.  He got a second test that produced the same results as the first, but again, Gonzalez claimed otherwise.  Finally, the state sought child support from Ortiz and he claimed non-paternity.  The trial court agreed with Ortiz, but the linked-to opinion by the Court of Appeals reversed that finding.

Why?  To begin with, the trial court found no fraud or duress, a fact I find to be very odd.  After all, Gonzalez knew to a certainty that Ortiz might not be the father, but never let on about the fact.  She knew that he was not the only man with whom she’d had intercourse near the time of conception, so she knew the other man might be the father.  The law is clear that the refusal to disclose a fact that’s material to a “transaction” can be fraudulent.  Equally clear is that, when paternity is at issue, the refusal by Gonzalez to make the simple statement “I’m not sure who the father is; it could be Jonathan or it could be” the other man, is an omission of a material fact.  Ergo, fraud.

But the trial court didn’t agree and the issue wasn’t raised at the appellate level.

So what about material mistake of fact?  Ortiz signed the affidavit at the hospital relying on Gonzalez’ misrepresentation that he’s the father.  How is it then that the appellate court can find that to not be a mistake of fact?  Well, it did so by relying not on what Ortiz did at the hospital, but on what he did later.  Clearly, once he’d received the first set of genetic test results, Ortiz could have been under no illusion that he is the child’s father, a fact emphasized by the appellate court. 

But just as clearly, nothing he did after signing the affidavit has any bearing on his reasons for signing it.  There at the hospital, he didn’t know whether he’s the father or not.  He signed, believing – at least provisionally – Gonzalez’ misrepresentations.

The appellate court is plainly wrong in its conclusions.  Gonzalez should appeal.

As if to say “we’re not very sure that we’ve ruled correctly,” the court went on to claim something even more bizarre.

This Court has noted that in a situation like this one, where setting aside paternity would leave a child fatherless, then the child would be a “filius nullius,” meaning a “son of nobody.” In re Paternity of E.M.L.G., 863 N.E.2d 867, 870 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The paternity statute was “created to avoid such an outcome, which could carry with it countless ‘detrimental emotional and financial effect[s].’”

“Leave a child fatherless?”  Excuse me?  No, relieving Ortiz of the duty of supporting a child who’s not his would in no way leave it fatherless.  The child has a father.  All that’s required to bring him into the child’s life is for Gonzalez to name him.  He could then take up his parental rights and duties and the man who’s actually responsible for bringing the child into the world would be responsible for its support and care.  And the man who’s not, wouldn’t be.  In other words, the state would get the matters of paternity and child support right instead of wrong.  And the child would grow up knowing who its true father is, a fact that can be vital in making medical decisions.

As I’ve asked so often before, why is it up to men, who do not and cannot know all the material facts, to figure out paternity?  Why isn’t it women’s obligation to identify all possible fathers of a child?  If they did, then DNA testing could be conducted and the correct father identified from the outset.  Again, women know with whom they have sex, but any given man knows only that he had sex with the woman in question.  He doesn’t know who her other partners have been.

The law should place the obligation of disclosure where it properly belongs – on the woman.  She should be required to tell the truth about paternity and, if she’s not sure, say that.  No sound public policy tags as fathers men who aren’t.  This needs to change.

February 14, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

It’s that time of year again in Florida.  Early Spring?  No, it’s the time when the legislature is in session, there are two bills that would reform alimony and parenting time law and, of course opposition to both from family lawyers.  Here’s one example from Amy Hamlin who’s president of the Family Law Section of the Florida State Bar (Florida Politics, 2/10/20).  We’ve been down this road in Florida many times before and, predictably, the family lawyers there have no new arguments to make in their desperation to head-off sensible reform.

Well, to be entirely accurate, Hamlin does have one new argument that comes in the subtitle to her piece.

Hasty changes to alimony reform won’t yield better results for Florida families.

“Hasty?”  Er, not exactly.  In fact, alimony reform and shared parenting are possibly the best-known, best-understood and most extensively vetted of any issue before the legislature.  That’s because they’ve been introduced as bills, heard by committees, argued to the full House and Senate and voted on for at least four years now.  That’s not what I call “hasty.”

Weirdly, Hamlin admits as much.

For the last several Legislative Sessions, there has a push for sweeping changes to Florida’s alimony statute…

So, according to the article, the effort is hasty and at the same time it’s been around for several years.  Make sense?  As it turns out, it makes about as much sense as the rest of Hamlin’s piece.

Predictably, Hamlin imagines a legal world few Floridians who’ve passed through it would recognize.  Indeed, if the comments to her piece are any indication, she’s entirely off-base.  For example, Hamlin wants to continue the system under which alimony payors can literally be paying on their deathbed.  Hamlin tells them not to worry because they can always pay a lawyer vast sums of money, go to court and pray that a judge who has almost complete discretion in the matter will give them a break.  Most people of course can’t afford to even try, meaning that their obligation to an ex-spouse, who can’t be bothered to give them the time of day, ends only with death. 

And those who can afford the legal bills often find that minor inconveniences like a serious illness or the desire to finally retire aren’t considered “changed circumstances” by His/Her Honor.  So the obligation to pay alimony not only can be permanent, it can deny the payor any semblance of a normal late life.

Perhaps most laughable is Hamlin’s plaint that the proposed reforms might not result in fair outcomes.  Nowhere does she mention the fact that the current system, about which she’s so enthusiastic, unquestionably does exactly that.  

Nor does Hamlin ever get around to saying what the bills would actually do.  Their whole point is to provide some sort of predictability to outcomes in alimony cases.  That is, if the bills become law, every divorcing person would know within reason what they would pay/receive and for how long.  They can then make sensible plans based on reasonable certainties.  As things stand now, it’s anyone’s guess.  No two judges are alike and all have extremely wide latitude about how they can rule.  It’s a crap shoot.

Amazing too is the fact that Hamlin betrays not the slightest awareness that we live in a time when men and women both do paid work and can support themselves.  Nowhere does she admit that the very concept of alimony is an artifact of days long gone by or that the spirit of independence and self-reliance demands that non-disabled adults should be required to fend for themselves.  Hamlin’s arguing for a system of law that assumed women to be helpless creatures incapable of seeing to their own needs.  That loony infantilization of women is not only factually false, but denigrating to the distaff half of society.

But alimony reform isn’t the only improvement to Florida law Hamlin opposes.  As a family attorney, she of course opposes equal parenting too.  And, as with alimony, she has nothing new to add to the threadbare arguments trotted out regularly by family lawyers everywhere.

Another troubling part of this proposed legislation is the presumption of equal timesharing, as a presumption of 50/50 timesharing wrongly assumes that all families are the same and should be treated the same.

No, actually it doesn’t.  Plus, as a lawyer, Hamlin surely knows it doesn’t.  What the bills would do is establish a presumption of equal parenting time.  But, as every lawyer knows, presumptions can be rebutted.  That gives judges the ability to order different parenting plans for different parents as the need arises.  Again, Hamlin knows this.  The fact that she pretends otherwise means but one thing – she has no real arguments to make against bills she doesn’t like. 

Of course she doesn’t like them because they’d cut into her revenue stream if they become law.  Needless to say, when it comes to lawyers’ take on shared parenting, the bottom line is always the bottom line.  It’s long past time the Florida Legislature stopped allowing this tiny special interest group to dictate so much about children’s welfare and other people’s money.