Abused Swan
Abused Swan
Po Box 52
Comstock Park, MI 49321
United States
ph: 616-322-5279
secretar
Lawyer Protection Act
Panel's fairness concerns judge's attorney
Lawyer: All-white commission an issue for Nettles-Nickerson
The attorney for Ingham County Circuit Judge Beverley Nettles-Nickerson said Monday he's concerned about her ability to get fair treatment from the all-white Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission.
Philip Thomas said he believes the commission came down hard on Nettles-Nickerson last week because of a federal lawsuit she brought against the commission. The suit alleges that its investigation of her was in retaliation for a complaint she filed with the state Civil Rights Commission.
"They are coming after her because she accused that agency of racism," Thomas said. "They are sensitive to that racial issue. She's raised that racial issue, and they haven't been fair with her."
Nettles-Nickerson has been accused by the JTC of misconduct both on and off the bench. The commission also would make any recommendations for sanctions, following a likely hearing by a state Supreme Court-appointed special master.
Commission Executive Director Paul Fischer said he believes Thomas is complaining about the makeup of the commission to divert attention.
"It's a classic defense attorney tactic, take focus off the wrongdoing and focus it somewhere else," he said.
On Monday, the state Department
of Civil Rights weighed in on the matter.
"It is our sincere hope that the JTC did not intend to imply that Judge Nettles-Nickerson should be disciplined in any way for exercising her right to file a civil rights complaint if she believed that she was being subjected to illegal discrimination," the commission wrote in part. ... "(W)e ask the Judicial Tenure Commission to amend its complaint to clarify that they are not seeking to discipline Judge Nettles-Nickerson for the act of filing her complaint with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Department."
The nine members of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission are selected in a variety of ways. Four are elected by various judge associations, three by the State Bar of Michigan and two are appointed by the governor. There are five women and four men on the panel.
Diane Hutcherson, president of the predominantly black Wolverine Bar Association, said it is a concern to her that all of the members of the commission are white.
"It just helps to have a more diverse pool" to understand what someone might have been thinking, she said.
Kim Cayhill, president of the State Bar of Michigan, said that in a perfect world, the commission would be more diverse but that most are picked in competitive elections.
She said she is confident the commissioners can do an effective job.
Contact Chris Andrews at 377-1054 or candrews@lsj.com.
"Father's Rights" Groups:
Beware Their Real AgendaBy Floria Woods, President, Michigan Now
"Shared Parental Responsibility." In our work as women's advocates, how often have we heard custodial moms wish that their children's father would share the parental responsibility? Unfortunately, "shared parental responsibility" is the new doublespeak for joint physical custody by so-called "father's rights" groups.
For example, in
Michigan proposed legislation supported by these groups would impose joint custody on parents who are in conflict over custody. Most studies report that joint custody works best when both parents want it and agree to work together.The
Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody is in the "best interests of the child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child.Michigan Now purposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.
Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers.
The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.
The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way.
There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children. "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988).
In "Ongoing Post Divorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement.
Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children."
"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in
Louisianawas almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Grandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts.
"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said.
Joining Michigan NOW in opposing this legislation are: antiviolence/ women's shelter groups, the bar association, child psychologists, social workers, family law experts, judges, lawyers, and even the Family Forum (a right-wing, "traditional family values" group).
You can check out the supporters of this bill and become familiar with the groups' real agenda by logging on to the Internet using any search engine such as Yahoo to search for "fathers' rights," or connect to: http://www.speakeasy.org/fathersrights/ or http://web2.airmail.net/fathers4 to learn more about their activities.
Further information on forced joint custody, including a list of studies and reports on its dangers, is available from the Now Foundation at 202-331-0066.
New program looks to ease divorce pain
Program to be unveiled in Kent County
Last Edited: Thursday, 29 Jan 2009, 9:22 PM EST
Created On: Thursday, 29 Jan 2009, 7:28 AM ESTGRAND RAPIDS, Mich (WOOD) - Focusing on the children.Kent County leaders are taking a look at a new program aimed at making divorce proceedings more amicable between parents, and easier on the kids caught up in them."I am proud that we're doing this," said Chief Judge Paul J. Sullivan of the Kent County Circuit Court. The goal of the Cooperative Parenting Project is to encourage negotiation and settlement between divorcing parents, and to make sure they put the emotional health of their children ahead of any personal grievances they have with one other. "There are very few parents who don't love their children and don't want what is best for their children," said Judge Sullivan.Beginning Feb. 2, every divorce case in Kent County will be placed into the new program. Parents will be required to write out a proposed parenting plan for the judge, explaining how much time their children will spend with each parent, how each parent plans to raise the children and how the parents will resolve any disputes between them before the parties ever appear in court."And part of the hope here is that by getting the parents here to concentrate on how their actions and how their decision impact their children that we can perhaps steer them in a direction and reach an agreement without the court needing to get involved formally," Judge Sullivan said.Under the plan, the courts will also use "non-adversarial" language, changing for instance the terms plaintiff or defendant, to mother or father, custody to parenting time, and child support to financial responsibility."If we can make it less adversarial for the families, and therefore, less adversarial for the children, it's gonna be in the best interest of these kids to do it that way," said Judge G. Patrick Hillary, presiding judge of the Kent County Circuit Court Family Division.While numbers in Kent County were down more than 4 percent in 2008, there have been nearly 4,300 divorce cases involving children in the past three years alone."We attempt to reduce the hostilities between the parents so that children come first, and an already difficult process is made at least a little bit easier," said Melanie Destintger, chairwoman of the Grand Rapids Bar Association's family law section.After two years here in Kent County, the Michigan Supreme Court will evaluate the results and decide whether to implement the project statewide.Volatile divorcing parents may torpedo 'gentler' approach, attorney says
Friday, January 30, 2009By Theresa D. McclellanThe Grand Rapids PressGRAND RAPIDS -- While Kent County Circuit Court's pilot plan to dial down the aggression in divorce cases has created positive buzz, some local attorneys warn about getting too Pollyanna-ish.
"There are real potentials for problems and there is a lot of real hesitation," said attorney Diann Landers, who led the Family Law Section of the Grand Rapids Bar Association in 2005, when the pilot project first was discussed.
The final proposal, introduced Thursday on the county's Web site, has gone through numerous committees and discussions in four years. And while the ideals are admirable, there are concerns, the attorney said.
Starting Monday, parents of minor children pursuing divorce in Kent County will see a "kids-first" policy including the use of "nonadversarial language," an emphasis on mediation before court action and a written parenting plan based on cooperation between parents.
But the first days of filing for divorce can be volatile, Landers said.
"For the one who didn't see it coming, they're in stages of grief and we want everybody to skip all over that, sing 'Kumbaya' by the campfire and say they can't go to court," Landers said.
Landers understands the need to work in the child's best interest, but she also worries that less-savvy parents will be more vulnerable in the early stages of the process.
"This is somewhat Pollyanna thinking that we can get those who are warring not to war and it will be nice," Landers said.
She and other lawyers worry the financial dirty tricks of divorce -- such as cutting off mortgage payments or stopping credit cards and utilities -- will not be addressed or have avenues for being addressed by court orders.
Such a change could cause more chaos and animosity, she said.
Advertisement
"The plan is for the courts to do less, not more, but court orders keep the peace and effectuate the process," Landers said.
"Why experiment in the second largest region in the state to ease the pain of divorce? Sometimes you can't unscramble the eggs."
Attorney Ben Wrigley said he, too, is hopeful, but a 28-year-background of handling divorces gives him reservation. "There are time frames which could essentially mean you don't get in front of a judge on a temporary motion for two or three months. ... The hope is we have rational people prepared to participate in mediation. But in doing divorce for 28 years, some are not," Wrigley said.
Both attorneys said they are counting on the ability to tweak problems since it is a pilot program.
The presiding judge of the Family Court division, G. Patrick Hillary, does not foresee more problems for parents trying to end their marriage. "We are discouraging courts right away and encouraging parties to first look at parenting plans and mediation, which should be a good thing," Hillary said. "The court will never block someone's ability to go to court, but we will look first and say, 'Did you try to follow this procedure first?'"
Send e-mail to the author: tmcclellan@grpress.com
Deanna's View
This is all the judges are going to do, look to see if the parents followed the procedure first. If judges over look domestic violence, what make a parent think this will not get over looked either. If a parent does not follow the "plan" there is no form of punishment. Deanna likes how the lawyers try to make all the problems out to be the parents and leave out how attorney's contribute to the "war in divorce." Deanna hired Diane Landers, the attorney in this article, and then fired her before she even went to court. If anyone likes to create a war in divorce, it is Diane Landers.
Now Grand Rapids Chapter
Grand Rapids, Michigan has a Now chapter. To become a member call 616-322-5279 or email secretary@abusedswan.com.
Britney Spears Bill
Help create the Britney Spears Bill and take it to legislation. Got to the Brieney Spears Bill page on this web site to find out more and become apart of this new legislation.
Abused Swan
Po Box 52
Comstock Park, MI 49321
United States
ph: 616-322-5279
secretar
