Very informative. Sadly...the whole system is designed to harm families and children on behalf of women who want the financial benefits of marriage without having to have a husband. More and more women are basically demonstrating themselves to be parasites.
International child abduction. Stolen jurisdiction. Extortion. A&B. Death threats. Forced interim child support. Paternity fraud. Parental Alienation. 10 years - no standing order for visitation. No due process. Title VI Discrimination - ignored. And it is still in a court in a country that my children were abducted to - and the Court does not see this father as a victim but rewards the abductor mother with money and placement.
"First they take your children and then they make you pay to see or not see them"
Very informative. Sadly...the whole system is designed to harm families and children on behalf of women who want the financial benefits of marriage without having to have a husband. More and more women are basically demonstrating themselves to be parasites.
Exactly Sadredin!
Thanks for conducting this interview, Tom.
Men Are Good. As are you !
🙌🏻🙌🏻💪🏻💪🏻❤️❤️
Thanks for all you have done and for all you continue to do !!
Thanks Joyful Joe. Appreciate you spreading the "Joyful!"
International child abduction. Stolen jurisdiction. Extortion. A&B. Death threats. Forced interim child support. Paternity fraud. Parental Alienation. 10 years - no standing order for visitation. No due process. Title VI Discrimination - ignored. And it is still in a court in a country that my children were abducted to - and the Court does not see this father as a victim but rewards the abductor mother with money and placement.
"First they take your children and then they make you pay to see or not see them"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/24-79.html
Does a defence of UCCJEA ‘Simultaneous
Proceedings’ become moot when one and not all pro
ceedings is dismissed, and where the original juris
diction dismissal cites the cause as the second and
simultaneous proceedings in the Rhode Island Family
Court, and thereafter an obligation to desist under the
HCCH 1996 treaty terms (App.35a). And where the
Rhode Island case is yet afoot, and where the HCCH
1996 Article 7 would allow for the matter of child
custody to be returned by Rhode Island to Australia
and where the Rhode Island Family Court had 62 days
from the docketed notice of the case and orders in
Australia to then adjudge ‘Simultaneous Proceedings’?
(i.e. well prior to the ultimate original case’s dismissal
in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia)
2. Should the Rhode Island Family Court have
scheduled without delay a Show Cause hearing after
February 13, 2020 to adjudge ‘Simultaneous Proceed
ings’, when presented with proper Australian Court
orders made March 22, 2018 (App.205a), within the
case afoot in the original jurisdiction?
3. Should the Rhode Island Family Court have
promptly scheduled an evidentiary hearing after Feb
ruary 13, 2020, to adjudge ‘Jurisdiction Declined by
Reason of Conduct’?
Questions Pertaining to Jurisdiction
4. Are evidentiary hearings required where juris diction is contested?
5. Did the Rhode Island Supreme Court err in finding Subject Matter jurisdiction alone is sufficient
to make a defence around Personal Jurisdiction
unavailing (App.l4a)? (i.e. when they asserted “[A]
state’s power to decide a custody matter does not
depend on its having personal jurisdiction over the
parties, but rather depends on its ability to adjudicate
matters concerning the status of its citizens through
quasi in rem jurisdiction Henderson v. Henderson,
818 A. 2d 669, 675 (R.I. 2003) and when the Henderson
case greatly differs from the instant case as it involves
no foreign citizens, Divorce from Bed and Board and
no intentional evasion of due process for 2 years by
one party)
6. Is a Defendant’s participation in Rhode Island
Family Court for mandated temporary Child Support
and Mediation, and when he was of the wrong belief
that a finding of fact on Jurisdiction was decreed
without him in chambers with then counsel, sufficient
to confer upon the Defendant an acceptance or
acquiescence of jurisdiction without an evidentiary
hearing to allow for review and due process?
Questions Pertaining to Access to Courts
7. Has the press and public’s First Amendment
right to witness the proceedings been met? See Rich
mond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
8. When access to Court proceedings is denied by
the Court justice is that a violation of due process
rights that would invalidate the court’s findings?
9. Are courts obligated to provide foreign national
Defendants and their witnesses, who enjoy no lawful
residency to the United States, remote video access for
hearings to prevent a larger financial and time burden
on them that might then unduly benefit the Plaintiff
party?
10. Further, should U.S. Defendants who challenge
jurisdiction, who reside permanently out of the state
of the subject matter jurisdiction and who put forward
a case around a substantial time and financial burden
for appearance, be thereafter allowed to appear via
the Court’s video conferencing technology?
11. Do the Due Process Clauses require judges
who deny video streaming of a hearing but have an
open court room, to declare why, what interest they
protect by not streaming, how substantial that interest
is and to offer reasonable alternatives for the public or
press who may not be in Rhode Island?
Questions Pertaining to Parental Rights
12. Does the Family Court err in not advancing the
Defendant’s request to identify the biological father
and potential support payer and also the discovery of
the Plaintiffs reasons for not enjoining the biological
father in her petition?
13. Can Child Support payments be ordered
without any evidentiary hearing or trial, in violation
of involuntary servitude protections of the Thirteenth
Amendment, and, further, where both parties mini
mally seek 50% custody time to support their children
per the fundamental parenting rights afforded by the
First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
14. Can Child Support be ordered before a finding
of fact on contested jurisdiction is found and decreed?
15. Did the Rhode Island Family Court err, upon
Defendant appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court,
by giving “Full Faith and Credit” to their own orders?
16. Did the Rhode Island Family Court err in
making temporary child support orders using the
state’s Office of Child Support Services standard
‘Custodial Parent/Non-Custodial Parent’ (CP/NCP)
formula instead of the Shared Placement formula,
given the Defendant father is a ‘non-custodial parent’
only by the unjustifiable conduct of the Plaintiff
mother and by her retaining the children away from
their home country without the Defendant’s permission,
a parent who would otherwise have continued to have
enjoyed shared access?
17. Did the Rhode Island Family Court err by
ordering temporary child support payments be made
directly to the Plaintiff mother by the Defendant
father and not into the account of the court registry
pending final orders, as per the Rhode Island General
Laws § 15-5-16.2. Child support(e)?
18. Are child support orders enforceable by the
Rhode Island Family Court and Office of Child Support
Services where the Defendant objects to all government
welfare (TANF, SNAP, etc) that might encourage and
prolong his children’s retention in Rhode Island and,
specifically, with regard ‘42 U.S.C. § 1301 (d)”Nothing
in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any
Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying
out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge
of any child over the objection of either of the parents
of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis
to such child”?
19. Did the Rhode Island Supreme Court err in
denying the Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
SU-2022-0313-MP, for child visitation and an evidentiary hearing?
20. Is 5 years without an evidentiary hearing or
any visitation orders in accordance with the Judicial
Oath of Office or is it abjuring the Defendant and his
children’s fundamental parenting rights?
Sorry you have had to go through this. Another example of what Stephen calls punishing the innocent. Thanks for posting this.
Great stuff yet again.
Thanks!