On Nov 16, 11:59=A0am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> October 21, 2008 CT Supreme Court Admits Parenting Cl***** Don't Help
> Children
>
> Parents don't have to use anything in the cl*****.
>
> Staff Writer =A0Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT
>
> Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the state can impose
> parenting cl***** in cases of divorce without probable cause or
> evidence that the child is impacted in anyway.
But if one thing they learn in the cl***** helps resolve an issue that
would have involved both of their attorneys, it'll be the best $125
they ever spent.
Figure this, if both parents raise an issue with their attnies and
both attnies bill them for 2 hours each, the total cost to the family
is close to $1,000 when the smoke clears..
> =A0The Court also had to
> admit in the same breath after parents waste their time and money for
> paying and attending parenting cl***** the parents can toss everything
> in the garbage that was forced down their throats. =A0
How was anything "forced down their throats?"
> Parents DO NOT
> have to use any of the information. Parents can walk out of the class
> and never use any of the information. =A0The State of Connecticut or the
> courts can not force parents to use ANY information that is given
> them. =A0Parents who are forced to attend cl***** who have already
> decided to never to use any of it is a waste of time and money.
How can someone decide not to use anything from the parenting class
when they've never attended it?
> Parenting cl***** [ have NEVER helped ] =A0a child and there is no
> evidence to show [ otherwise ]. =A0
Never?
I find that difficult to believe.
> These cl***** are based on educated
> guess at best. =A0
Conflict resolution isn't a guessing game.
> Every child is different and the parent knows the
> child and is fully capable of educating their own children. =A0
All parents are capable of educating their children?
That's why no parent should have to attend the parenting class?
> Stop
> wasting parents time and money. =A0Judges already have the authority to
> order parenting cl***** or anger management cl***** in a case by case
> basis and has judicial review. =A0In divorce cases, parenting cl*****
> are part of an automatic court order the minute you file for divorce
> with NO judicial review. The intent of the cl***** were to help
> children through an alleged difficult time. =A0
Children and parents.
> This state statute
> forcing parenting cl***** is not sup****ted that parents and children
> need or want help. =A0Nor did the state show that parents are incapable
> of handling divorce or any other stressful time in the family like a
> death of a parent. =A0The state presumes that ALL parents are unfit and
> incompetent contrary to Troxel v. Granville.
The state presumes that both that parents and children in a family
going thru a divorce would benefit in some way by taking a parenting
course.
Actually it probably costs the attorneys far more (in fees) than it
costs the parents.
> In the U.S. Supreme Court
> opinion in Troxel v. Granville, parents are presumed to be fit,
> competent and fully capable of taking care of their children. =A0The
> state must show the requisite proof of parental unfitness in order for
> states or judges to have jurisdiction. =A0
Don't the Judge's have jurisdiction because the parents filed for a
divorce?
> Compelling state interest is
> not a legal way to cir***vent due process. Below is the AP story by
> Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer.
>
> By STEPHANIE REITZ, Associated Press Writer
> =A0Posted on Oct 20, 12:22 PM EDT
> HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- A state law requiring Connecticut couples to
> take parenting education courses as a condition of their divorce cases
> is constitutional and protects children's interests, the state Supreme
> Court ruled Monday.
>
> The high court, in a unanimous ruling, rejected an appeal by Bristol
> resident Thomas Dutkiewicz stemming from his 2006 divorce.
>
> Dutkiewicz said forcing parents to attend the cl***** is akin to
> convicting a person without a trial, since the law does not consider
> whether a person already is a good parent.
Everybody in a family would benefit when a divorcing mother and father
learn conflict resolution.
And how to keep the divorce from impacting on their children any more
than necessary.
> He also said it infringes on constitutional guarantees of freedom of
> choice in family matters and violates parents' right to choose what is
> best for their children.
The parents still have a choice... their own.
> The Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision that the cl*****
> achieve "a compelling state interest by aiming to maintain familial
> harmony through a difficult transition."
Maintaining familial harmony, like that's a bad thing.
> Justices also concluded the cl***** do not represent any "intrusion on
> the parent's decision-making authority" since parents can embrace or
> ignore the lessons.
>
> State law requires divorcing parents to sign up for the $125 cl*****
> if they have children under 18. The six-hour programs are run by
> family service agencies, counseling programs and other court-approved
> entities statewide.
>
> They are required for all parties involved in divorces, dissolving
> civil unions, annulments, legal separations and child custody or
> visitation cases.
>
> Dutkiewicz, a truck driver, filed his appeal after he and his ex-wife
> were ordered to attend the cl***** as part of their 2006 divorce.
> Attendance can be waived if both spouses and a judge agree, as
> occurred in the Dutkiewicz divorce.
>
> However, he appealed the case to challenge the state law, which he
> called similar to "getting a sentence without a trial."
Sounds like he had advice from grag hanson.
> "Like anger management (cl*****), there should be some evidence or
> proof that the class would even be needed," he said Monday. "I'm
> disappointed, because basically they're saying they can impose
> anything without any judicial review."
>
> Dutkiewicz also is president of Connecticut DCF Watch, an organization
> he started in 2003 with other parents to monitor state and national
> child welfare services.
>
> He said Monday that he questions why the law on parenting education
> cl***** is so automatic and inflexible.
Because it's a good idea for the parents and children.
> For example, he said, it does not consider cases in which infant
> children would be unaware of a divorce;
Familial harmony benefits a child no matter how old they are.
Infants can't hear loud voices or people screaming, or crying?
> or when a parent can prove
> they already have the communication skills to help their child through
> the transition.
Who would the parents have to prove that to?
And would it be less expensive and less time consuming than the
parenting cl*****?
> "I'm a cancer survivor. I didn't need the state to tell me how to
> address that with my children, so why this?" Dutkiewicz said.
>
> The state Judicial Branch brochure given to the participants says the
> cl***** "include information about children's developmental stages,
> helping children adult to parent separation."
>
> They also focus on "cooperative parenting, conflict management and
> dispute resolution techniques, guidelines for visitation and parent
> access, and stress reduction for children."
Makes sense to me.
|
