Fathers Rights To See Children – Tameka vs. Usher
Fathers Rights To See Children are of tremendous interest, and my first glance at this news piece, supposedly about fathers rights to see children, was, naturally, to see what dark reprehensible things Usher had been up to that might cause Tameka to seek to strip him of his rights to visit his two young sons resulting from his short marriage to Tameka.
I was thoroughly put off, however, within about 30 seconds as the ‘ other shoe dropped ‘ rather quickly, and it became patently clear what this attempt at sensation over Usher’s fathers visitation rights was about one thing, and one thing only, MORE MONEY!
Why were these alleged monetary grievances left to accumulate if they were indeed so oppressive and damaging as to justify stripping the father and the children of their normal, natural, and legal rights to enjoy each other in the anticipated parent child relationship?
Fathers Rights To See Children – Usher’s Ex-Wife — You Don’t DESERVE Our Kids | TMZ.com
www.tmz.com11/29/11
Tameka Raymond — who had 2 kids with Usher during their brief 2 year marriage — filed court papers in Georgia … asking a judge to strip Usher of joint physical custody of their children ASAP. According to the docs, Tameka …
This ‘ piece of work .’ obviously handcrafted by her attorney, would seek to interfere with and to strip the fathers rights over a claim for money … concocted during the holidays by a desperate wanna be celebrity’s wife yet!
Fathers Rights To See Children Must Remain Intact!
Lest any one forget the consequences of legal maneuvering to cut fathers out of the lives of their children, just take a look below at the consequences of such a well traveled judicial road! For more than the last forty years, so called ‘family law’ has devastated society in general and desperately and unnecessarily hurt the millions of fathers and children torn apart as their families were destroyed right in front of their eyes! Here are the ugly consequences.
63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) — 5 times the average.
90 percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes — 32 times the average.
85 percent of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80 percent of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes — 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70 percent of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85 percent of all youths in prison come from homes where Fathers visitation rights were dysfunctional for some reason– 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Based on the foregoing, public and court policy should begin an immediate shift toward the following
1. Legal procedure should bar the mixing of custody, visitation, and related issues with any and all claims for money, whatever their basis. Two separate actions should be required in instances where both types of redress are sought.
2. Such claims brought by former spouses must meet this test: accusations must include a flagrant pattern of the most broadly accepted morally objectionable or endangerment related actions which are severely detrimental to and undermining of the role of parenting and or the child’s safety and well being. These incidents must be documented documented to the highest standards of proof, before they may be considered by the court at all.
3. Except where lives are clearly documented as being at stake, parties seeking to strip fathers of parental rights, full or partial, must be required to file a rebuttable “Financial, Social, Parental Rights, Family Law, and Constitutional Impact Statement” with the court of proper jurisdiction.
4. Parties and their attorneys who bring actions seeking to deny fathers rights to see children that do not adequately meet the above test and requirements should both be subject to the harshest of court sanctions.
Please share this with friends who are interested in, are going through some of these issues, or are about to go through any of these issues!
Recommended Reading
