Are Florida Family Court JudgesAbove The Law? By Jeffrey D. Dean, Sr .

Here is a LINK to the ACTUAL REWRITE ACT: (just copy and paste it into aseparate browser window to read it for yourself as you study this opinion paper)http://c hildrens-justice.org/papers/Florida-rewrite/Florida-Family-Law-Rewrite-2003.htmD ISCLAIMER:I am NOT an attorney. I can not offer any LEGAL ADVISE on the subjects contained within this document. This paper is an OPINION PAPER only! Yetyou will find that the Family Law Rewrite Act supports every single assertion Imake here !It has been over 3 years now since the "Family Law Rewrite Act" has taken effec t(in October 2008). It comes as no surprise, though, that Florida Family CourtJu dges and Department of Revenue Hearing Officers are still not following theNEW l aw and are still issuing orders that are in keeping with the OLD law. Onecan onl y conjecture why this is, some say it's because so many new laws arepassed every year and come across the Judges' desks, and the Judges arerelying on their Cler ks to alert them of important new law changes; However, Ifind this to be extreme ly unlikely and even if it were true this is no excuse.Judges are responsible ul timately to ensure that their own Final Orders are incompliance with the CURRENT laws of the land!It's very likely that these Final Orders that have been issued since October 2008which are not complying with the Family Law Rewrite are ONLY occuring, for themost part, to parents who show up in Court without a Lawyer, fo r, any FamilyLaw Attorney worth his salt is going to be completely familiar with the new lawand is not going to allow a Judge to get away with circumventing it. Since the Florida Supreme Court has determined that every parent should beable t o go to Family Court without an attorney (and has even created easypetition form s to that end) the Judges are ACTUALLY flying in the face of theauthority of the Florida Supreme Court when they ignore the new law justbecause someone does not have an Attorney present to ensure they comply withthe law!Cases in point:

Case number 1: Dixie CountyJust this year a parent reprenting herself was DENIED 50 percent time sharewith her child as an "unfit" parent because she has attemp ted to commit suicidein the past and has other emotional and psychological issue s. While under theOLD law this was perfectly acceptable. The Family Law Rewrite

states thatevery parent is entitled to 50 percent time with their child (CONSTIT UTIONALLYPROTECTED RIGHT) unless that parent is deemed "unfit" and "unfit" is de finedstrictly by the following criteria under the law:1. The parent has been con victed in a COURT OF LAW of domestic violence or child abuse. (Although I certai nly could make a case that "domestic violence"statement herein only applies to d omestic violence against the CHILD, any goodlawyer could, so in my OPINION Judge s who deny a parent their fundamentalparental rights based upon a conviction of domestic violence against ANYONEother than the child in question are trampling t hat parent's rights).2. The parent has made a "false accusation" of child abuse or neglect againstthe OTHER parent during or in close proximity of a child custo dy case. (Falseaccusation is defined under the New law as any accusation that ha s not resultedin a CONVICTION of the accused parent in a COURT OF LAW).3. The pa rent has been convicted of a FELONY within the last 5 years.4. The parent has be en declared in Contempt of Court and that Contempt wasso severe and agrievous th at it demonstrates the parent has a lack of concern for the well being of their child.Under the new law those are the ONLY criteria under which a parent may bed eemed "unfit" and denied 50 percent time share. All the OLD criterias that wereu sed (such as a parent's mental state or capacity, a parent's emotional state,mor al standing etc.) have been STRICKEN from the law!Under the NEW law you can't ev en bring up in Court the other parent's "fitness"issue unless they fall under on e of the categories outlined 61.13.3! Any Judgewho entertains said fitness quest ions (not within the law) is allowing one parentto level a "false accusation" as defined under the law (because a falseaccusation is ANY accusation made during a child custody case or in closeproximity of the case which has not been substan tiated by a CONVICTION in aCRIMINAL COURT). Judges place themselves in a VERY PR ECARIOUSsituation listening to arguments of FITNESS that do not fall under the a bove 4categories. If they deny the other parent 50 percent time share based on f itnessissues that are not defined in the LAW they are denying that Parent their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as a PARENT. Judges can be disbarred for this!Here are the exact STATUTES that I use to support my above conclusions:

FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5. Abolishes custody as an action at law in ordinarycivil divorce actions, with excep ions provided for casesin which a parent is unfit due to abuse, neglect orabando nment of the child. Abolishes child supportawards except in cases where a parent is unwilling orunable (due to being unfit) to be fully involved as ashared pare nt. Prohibits move-aways that have asubstantive impact on parental rights andres ponsibilities without the consent of the parties.Requires the court to accept pr ivately-negotiatedagreements on custody, and provides a default of 50/50parentin g for parents who are unable or unwilling toagree between themselves. Defines acts hat cause aparent to be adjudicated unfit for custody. Requires thecourt to hono r the agreements filed in (1) above.Abolishes interim attorney fee awards. Aboli shes theinterest of third parties (including grandparents) tobring custody or vi sitation lawsuits.

Custody no longer exists under the law (except when parents are deemed unfitand there is very narrow criteria for this in the law but we will get to that part i n amoment). The new law establishes 50/50 time share split of the child's time a ndas we will see in a moment by looking at the law this 50/50 time split isCONST ITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, which means, in absence of a Judgesorder or Mediation agr eement every parent is Constitutionally entitled to 50/50time with their child. (This has GREAT impact on Department of RevenueHearing Officers because a parent does not NEED a Judges Order giving them50 percent time share with their child it's DEFAULT and Constitutionallyprotected), the Hearing Officer cannot say any more "custody is not within my jurisdiction and that's a different issue entirel y for a different Judge" because anytime the Hearing Officer does not RESPECT th e parent's 50/50 Time Shareentitlement (by issuing child support orders against that parent) the Hearingofficer is treading on that parent's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGH TS. Under the NEWlaw a Hearing Officer cannot issue child support orders against a parent unless acompetent JUDGE has DENIED them their Constitutional Right to 50/50 timesplit (we will get to that statute in a moment as well).Under the NEW law Department of Revenue Hearing Officers are LIMITED in thechild support order s they issue against a parent. They can only issue childsupport against a parent who has been deemed "unfit" under the legal criteria. In

Are Florida Family Court JudgesAbove The Law? By Jeffrey D. Dean, Sr . Here is a LINK to the ACTUAL REWRITE ACT: (just copy and paste it into aseparate browser window to read it for yourself as you study this opinion paper)http://c hildrens-justice.org/papers/Florida-rewrite/Florida-Family-Law-Rewrite-2003.htmD ISCLAIMER:I am NOT an attorney. I can not offer any LEGAL ADVISE on the subjects contained within this document. This paper is an OPINION PAPER only! Yetyou will find that the Family Law Rewrite Act supports every single assertion Imake here !It has been over 3 years now since the "Family Law Rewrite Act" has taken effec t(in October 2008). It comes as no surprise, though, that Florida Family CourtJu dges and Department of Revenue Hearing Officers are still not following theNEW l aw and are still issuing orders that are in keeping with the OLD law. Onecan onl y conjecture why this is, some say it's because so many new laws arepassed every year and come across the Judges' desks, and the Judges arerelying on their Cler ks to alert them of important new law changes; However, Ifind this to be extreme ly unlikely and even if it were true this is no excuse.Judges are responsible ul timately to ensure that their own Final Orders are incompliance with the CURRENT laws of the land!It's very likely that these Final Orders that have been issued since October 2008which are not complying with the Family Law Rewrite are ONLY occuring, for themost part, to parents who show up in Court without a Lawyer, fo r, any FamilyLaw Attorney worth his salt is going to be completely familiar with the new lawand is not going to allow a Judge to get away with circumventing it. Since the Florida Supreme Court has determined that every parent should beable t o go to Family Court without an attorney (and has even created easypetition form s to that end) the Judges are ACTUALLY flying in the face of theauthority of the Florida Supreme Court when they ignore the new law justbecause someone does not have an Attorney present to ensure they comply withthe law!Cases in point:

Case number 1: Dixie CountyJust this year a parent reprenting herself was DENIED 50 percent time sharewith her child as an "unfit" parent because she has attemp ted to commit suicidein the past and has other emotional and psychological issue s. While under theOLD law this was perfectly acceptable. The Family Law Rewrite states thatevery parent is entitled to 50 percent time with their child (CONSTIT UTIONALLYPROTECTED RIGHT) unless that parent is deemed "unfit" and "unfit" is de finedstrictly by the following criteria under the law:1. The parent has been con victed in a COURT OF LAW of domestic violence or child abuse. (Although I certai nly could make a case that "domestic violence"statement herein only applies to d omestic violence against the CHILD, any goodlawyer could, so in my OPINION Judge s who deny a parent their fundamentalparental rights based upon a conviction of domestic violence against ANYONEother than the child in question are trampling t hat parent's rights).2. The parent has made a "false accusation" of child abuse or neglect againstthe OTHER parent during or in close proximity of a child custo dy case. (Falseaccusation is defined under the New law as any accusation that ha s not resultedin a CONVICTION of the accused parent in a COURT OF LAW).3. The pa rent has been convicted of a FELONY within the last 5 years.4. The parent has be en declared in Contempt of Court and that Contempt wasso severe and agrievous th at it demonstrates the parent has a lack of concern for the well being of their child.Under the new law those are the ONLY criteria under which a parent may bed eemed "unfit" and denied 50 percent time share. All the OLD criterias that wereu sed (such as a parent's mental state or capacity, a parent's emotional state,mor al standing etc.) have been STRICKEN from the law!Under the NEW law you can't ev en bring up in Court the other parent's "fitness"issue unless they fall under on e of the categories outlined 61.13.3! Any Judgewho entertains said fitness quest ions (not within the law) is allowing one parentto level a "false accusation" as defined under the law (because a falseaccusation is ANY accusation made during a child custody case or in closeproximity of the case which has not been substan tiated by a CONVICTION in aCRIMINAL COURT). Judges place themselves in a VERY PR ECARIOUSsituation listening to arguments of FITNESS that do not fall under the a bove 4categories. If they deny the other parent 50 percent time share based on f itnessissues that are not defined in the LAW they are denying that Parent their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as a PARENT. Judges can be disbarred for this!Here are the exact STATUTES that I use to support my above conclusions:

FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5. Abolishes custody as an action at law in ordinarycivil divorce actions, with excep ions provided for casesin which a parent is unfit due to abuse, neglect orabando nment of the child. Abolishes child supportawards except in cases where a parent is unwilling orunable (due to being unfit) to be fully involved as ashared pare nt. Prohibits move-aways that have asubstantive impact on parental rights andres

ponsibilities without the consent of the parties.Requires the court to accept pr ivately-negotiatedagreements on custody, and provides a default of 50/50parentin g for parents who are unable or unwilling toagree between themselves. Defines acts hat cause aparent to be adjudicated unfit for custody. Requires thecourt to hono r the agreements filed in (1) above.Abolishes interim attorney fee awards. Aboli shes theinterest of third parties (including grandparents) tobring custody or vi sitation lawsuits. Custody no longer exists under the law (except when parents are deemed unfitand there is very narrow criteria for this in the law but we will get to that part i n amoment). The new law establishes 50/50 time share split of the child's time a ndas we will see in a moment by looking at the law this 50/50 time split isCONST ITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, which means, in absence of a Judgesorder or Mediation agr eement every parent is Constitutionally entitled to 50/50time with their child. (This has GREAT impact on Department of RevenueHearing Officers because a parent does not NEED a Judges Order giving them50 percent time share with their child it's DEFAULT and Constitutionallyprotected), the Hearing Officer cannot say any more "custody is not within my jurisdiction and that's a different issue entirel y for a different Judge" because anytime the Hearing Officer does not RESPECT th e parent's 50/50 Time Shareentitlement (by issuing child support orders against that parent) the Hearingofficer is treading on that parent's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGH TS. Under the NEWlaw a Hearing Officer cannot issue child support orders against a parent unless acompetent JUDGE has DENIED them their Constitutional Right to 50/50 timesplit (we will get to that statute in a moment as well).Under the NEW law Department of Revenue Hearing Officers are LIMITED in thechild support order s they issue against a parent. They can only issue childsupport against a parent who has been deemed "unfit" under the legal criteria. In