New Bill, Violating a child custody order punishable by two years in jail

[woof]

Note what a burden this law would put on the legal system and not one word about the best interest of the children. Anyway, progress none the less, if passed.


http://tinyurl.com/yyofxb

Martinez files child custody bill
December 26,2006
Elizabeth Pierson
Monitor Staff Writer

AUSTIN -- State Rep. Armando "Mando" Martinez, D-Weslaco, has filed a bill that would make violating a temporary child custody order punishable by two years in jail.

Violation of a temporary order from a judge is already a crime because it is considered contempt of court. But Martinez's bill would place the violation in the penal code on the same level as violation of a permanent order.

Martinez had personal experience with a temporary child custody order earlier this year, during a heated divorce battle with his ex-wife. When repeatedly asked whether he filed the bill based on that experience, Martinez refused to say.

"All I'm going to say is that when a temporary order is violated, it's not enforced; but it is signed by a judge, so that's what gave me the idea," he said. "I believe a temporary order should have the same type of bearing."

Even if the bill passes, district attorneys will almost certainly not prosecute, said Jack Sampson, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and expert in family law and legislative process.

Slapping criminal charges on a party during a messy divorce dispute could make a bad situation worse for all parties involved, especially before the court has made its final determination about what is best for the children, he said.

When asked whether district attorneys would be unlikely to prosecute under the proposed law, he said: "I think 'unlikely' states it too mildly. 'Assuredly' is more accurate."

With larger, more important cases not prosecuted because of lack of resources and overcrowded jails, local prosecutors have to pick their battles, he said.

"One thing the Legislature can and does (do) every session is pass a whole bunch of new laws making additional conduct prosecutable by criminal (statute)," Sampson said.

"But the county commissioners would freak out if somehow everybody who got cross-eyed over a divorce somehow ended up ... in the Travis County or the Cameron County jail."

Martinez said he simply wants to make sure district attorneys have the option of prosecuting when a temporary order is violated.

"Hey, that's up to them if they don't want to prosecute it," Martinez said.

[zarbyman]

Slapping criminal charges on a party during a messy divorce dispute could make a bad situation worse for all parties involved, especially before the court has made its final determination about what is best for the children, he said.

Jesus, what world does he come from?

They slap criminal charges on men day in day out all the time.

What he is really saying is that it would be bad to slap criminal charges on women (this is a statute women are very likely to violate -- a statute directed at women primarily not men).

It is good when men in high places get the "treatment." They start tyring to do something about it and they have the means to do something.

It is very important that visitation is not interrupted. It is very important that temporary orders be honored. If men are going to be arrested for even the most minor DV, women should be arrested for denying visitation. There should be mandatory arrest policies and no drop policies.

I am not sure I really mean what I say, but I do think what is good for the gandor should be good for the goose. Actually, there should be reasonable and sound discretion exercised in both instances.

I went to the same where Sampson teaches. I didn't have him as my family law professor, but the family law professor that I did have made me almost literally sick to my stomach. That was twenty years ago long before I had my personal family law experiences. She now sits as an appellate judge.

[Quentin0352]

Yup, another one to post up on Hannity and see the feminists try to defend against like they usually do. It is funny to see how they twist in the wind trying to dodge and change things around only to see a bunch of others starting to convert.

[CaptDMO]

I don't like it.
While the intent here is clear enough, I see a recipe for
unintended concequences, disasterous for all
potential targets of pretend offences.

[K9]

I don't like it.
While the intent here is clear enough, I see a recipe for
unintended concequences, disasterous for all
potential targets of pretend offences.

I don't like it.
While the intent here is clear enough, I see a recipe for
unintended concequences, disasterous for all
potential targets of pretend offences.

In the few places where interference with visitation is punished, the NCP has to jump through hoops and provide documentation before a custodial parent is charged. It's not a he-she said situation where a custodial parent is thrown in jail on the word of a NCP.

...With larger, more important cases not prosecuted because of lack of resources and overcrowded jails, local prosecutors have to pick their battles, he said.

Strange how Texas Persecutors have to pick their battles, yet scumbags like Nifong and Diane  Resch-Donohoo have enough time on their hands to pick and choose the lives they want to destroy.

[zarbyman]

When he says that prosecutors have to pick and chose their cases, on the one hand, he is absolutely correct. There are so many criminal laws and violations that no prosecutor could possibly prosecute everything.

However, in this instance, this statement is a code word for his hope or expectation that prosecutors would ignore this proposed law if ever law.

There is already a statute in Texas that makes interference with child custody a crime. It is written to exclude time periods of three days or less (the most common time allowed to noncustodial parents).

I heard that this statute was enforced once. However, basically, I have never heard of this statute being used. Of course, custodial parents interfere with noncustodial visitation all the time (not just for 3 days or less).

Some laws are on the books but might as well not be. I think he suggesting that if by some chance this law is passed it should be ignored.

The feminist crowd has scared and bribed prosecutors to enforce virtually every purported violation of DV and protective orders and even rape. The prosecutors are unlikely to feel compelled to prosecute every violation of this if ever law.

[woof]

There is clearly a need for this law, but I find it hard to believe a judge would put a mother in jail.......too many knights needing to save the fairy princess. 



• 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse. ["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]
• 50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children. ["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]

  * "Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
    * In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
    * "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

•  The following are recent statistics about children of divorce and separation from the newsletter Common Sense & Domestic Violence, 1998 01 30

Allegations of family violence are the weapon-of-choice in divorce strategies. Lawyers, and paralegals in women's shelters, call them "The Silver Bullet". False abuse allegations work effectively in removing men from their families. The impact that the removal of fathers has on our children is horrific.

The Impact on our Children Inter-spousal violence perpetrated by men is only a small aspect of family violence. False abuse allegations are only a small tile in the mosaic of vilifying the men in our society. They serve well in successful attempts to remove fathers from the lives of our children.