This email is in reverse order to times they were sent sent, So, you might want to start from the bottom. I'll only give away that I'm Carl:

Jessica,

As fundamental as it should be considered to be that in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be able to be a meaningful part of their kids lives, it is still hard to express my joy, respect, and to a much smaller extent, some feel sort of vindication when a legislator openly agrees. I realize the phrase of "meaningful part" sets the bar pretty low, but even so, making it possible for all good parents to do just that would be the most important piece of legislation to benefit the current generation of children, as well as others to come. Even if the legislature had an infinite amount of money to fund an unlimited number of programs, it would still fail to match the success that only a child's two parents have the ability to provide. I appreciate and accept Rep. Goodlette's offer to locate another sponsor. I am certain that in hind sight, Rep. Goodlette's only regret will be that he wasn't the original sponsor of such common sense and profound legislation. Nevertheless, I am proud of his stance.

If you and Rep. Goodlette have noticed a marked decrease in my correspondence to your office, it is that I regrettably no longer live in his district. But, my son still does while he is not with me. Since my focus has always been about making things the way they ought to be by the time it is time for him to be a daddy for all the right reasons, your response regarding his future means more to me than my current representative's would (Rep. Davis). Besides that, from my correspondence with Rep. Goodlette, and especially Steve Hart, I can say that I like you. I hope you will pass along our correspondence to Steve. He is a good dad too. There is no reason why Florida shouldn't say that it is the policy of our state that all parents like him be able to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives.

Regrettably, I have not heard back from Rep. Davis' office in quite a long time now. That is even though a similar type letter was emailed to him at the same time as this last one to you. If there is anything you can do to help facilitate correspondence between us, I would very much appreciate it. Coincidentally, he is on the Future of Florida's Families Committee, which would be a very appropriate committee for such legislation to originate from.

I am sorry that I somehow missed your message at my home phone. I would be honored to hear from you on my cell at XXXXXXXX. That is how to best get in touch with me during the day. Of course, email is always good too. My first natural question is what would you like me to do to start looking for another sponsor, and can I say that Rep. Goodlette has agreed to co-sponsor the legislation?

On behalf of millions of good dads, who would like to be more meaningful parts of their kids' lives, I anxiously look forward to hearing back from you.

Respectfully,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


----- Original Message -----
From: Kardas, Jessica
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: write your representative website


Dear Carl,
Thank you for your email to Representative Goodlette. He has read your email and asked that I respond. I did try to contact you through the XXXXXXXX phone number and left a message. Representative Goodlette, although he agrees with your analysis, is not in the position to file such legislation. He would however like to help you locate another bill sponsor. Feel free contact me via email if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,
Jessica T. Kardas
Legislative Assistant
State Representative Dudley Goodlette
Florida House of Representatives, District 76
3301 East Tamiami Trail Ste 203
Naples, FL 34112 P 239) 417-6205
317 The Capitol, 402 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
850-488-4487 FAX 922-6002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 8:49 AM
To: Goodlette, Dudley
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: From 'Write Your Representative' Website


11/24/04 8:49 AM

To the Honorable J. Dudley Goodlette;

Dear Rep. Goodlette:

Ch. 61.30 of Florida's statutes defines a 'substantial" amount of time between a parent and their child as being 40% or more overnights by the child at that parent's home. In that context, the word substantial has been used interchangeably with the word meaningful. Yet, Florida has no provisions or assurances that fit parents retain their rights to be a meaningful or substantial part of their children's lives. In contradiction to the U.S. Constitution, Florida's state statutes do not provide parents any rights to the custody and care of their children at all. Somehow an Orwellian presumption was allowed to develop that courts can best determine the interests of children, rather than their parents. Could it possibly be that Florida's Legislature doesn't believe that in the absence of wrongdoing both parents should be a meaningful part of their kids' lives?

I suspect that if asked in a public setting, nearly all legislators would say that yes, they believe in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be able to be a meaningful and substantial part of their kids' lives. But, needless to say, the Florida Legislature has been collectively silent. As a result, it would be difficult for the Legislature to have failed its children more miserably. By just about every conceivable measure of child welfare, that is proven to be the case. I'd be happy to provide the results of those types of studies to you again, if you would like.

Interestingly, in Massachusetts, quite possibly the most liberal of states, where it would be rational to assume that NOW has as much political influence as anywhere else, there was a statewide referendum on this very issue. The following is the exact wording on the ballot that was put to voters just this month:

"Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation to create a strong presumption in child custody cases in favor of joint physical and legal custody, so that the court will order that the children have equal access to both parents as much as possible, except where there is clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit, or that joint custody is not possible due to the fault of one of the parents?"

The measure received a super majority of 85% of the vote. To put that in context, John Kerry only received 63% of the vote. It was a 6 to 1 vote in the support of the common sense that the best parent is both parents. With knowledge of these types of facts, it is my hope that legislators in Florida will no longer be reluctant to deal with the issue. As my son's representative, and a member of the Civil Justice Committee, I ask that you sponsor a bill which will assure him that both of his parents be allowed to be a meaningful part of his life.

Please let me know where you stand on this issue.

Happy Thanksgiving,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

It seems like common horse sense has gone the way of the dinosaur.

Here's an article I've received. Mr. Abraham knows of what he writes.

By Jed. H. Abraham, Esq.
Insight Magazine

If you’re like most men, you’re married or you hope to marry some day.
You think you deserve to live happily ever after but, if things don’t
work
out that way, you’ll get a civilized divorce and move on. You’ll stay
pals
with your ex-wife and you’ll see your kids as often as you want.

You have no idea what you’re getting into.

The odds are 40 to 50 percent that your marriage will end in divorce.
The
odds are 70 percent that your divorce will be filed by your wife. The
odds
are 80 percent that your wife will get custody of your children — plus
child support, alimony and/or a hefty chunk of your property.

From the moment your wife files for divorce, the state, acting through
the court, will assert authority over everything you own. The court
then
can give a major share to your wife by applying the law of
“equitable distribution.”

The law of equitable distribution is based on the “partnership theory
of marriage.” This theory holds that your marriage is a business
partnership. Everything you earned during marriage you earned for the
partnership. Therefore, upon divorce, all your accumulated assets must
be
split “equitably” between you and your “partner.”

The theory also holds that if the property your ex is awarded at
divorce
doesn’t yield enough to support her at the standard of living you
established during the marriage, then you should “equitably” pay her
the difference in alimony until she becomes self-supporting — in most
states, even if the breakdown of the marriage was her fault.

The partnership theory of marriage doesn’t quite cover everything you
made during marriage: It doesn’t cover your children.

Even though you and your ex were partners in the creation of your
children,
and even though you each contributed “equitably” to their upbringing,
these
considerations will carry little weight in court. Yielding to
precedent
and
preconception, the court commonly will decide that it is in the
“best interest” of your children to be in the sole custody of their
mother.

As sole custodian, your ex will acquire primary parental authority to
live
with your children and to determine their general development,
including
their health care, education and religious training.

You may “visit” with them on scheduled weekends.

After the court awards your ex the sole custody of your children, it
will
award you something very special also: the obligation to pay child
support.

Your child-support obligation will not be determined by your
children’s
basic needs. The court first will calculate your income, which it then
will proceed to tax at a predetermined “guideline” rate set by law.
The guideline rate will vary according to the number of your children.
It also may vary according to your income level and that of your ex.

At your child-support hearing, you’ll be permitted to introduce
evidence
that the guideline rate is too high — that it will generate more money
than
is needed by your children or that it will leave you with too little
to
live on. But the law strongly presumes that the guideline rate
produces
the correct minimum amount of child support. The burden of proof will
be
on you to overcome this presumption. The court won’t reduce your
guideline
rate, except in extreme circumstances.


a.. If you are a wage-earner, the child support you owe will be
withheld
from your wages and paid directly to your ex without your ever having
to
write her a check.

b.. Once in the clutches of the child-support system,
you’ll be systematically shorn of your economic autonomy.

c.. If you lose your job, you must continue to pay the court-ordered
amount. To get relief, you must file a petition with the court. You
also
may have to hire a lawyer to argue the petition —which, if unemployed,
you would be hard-pressed to do.

d.. In court, you won’t get complete relief. Initially, the court
will
expect you to pay a large part of the ordered amount out of savings.
It
will expect you to reduce your own standard of living before it
reduces
your child-support obligation. You’ll also have to pay — in full — any
amounts you failed to pay from the day you lost your job until the day
you filed your petition.

e.. If you find a new job which pays less than your old one, the
court needn’t reduce your child-support obligation correspondingly.
The
court may suspect that you took the lower-paying job to reduce your
child-support payments. The burden will be on you to prove you didn’t.

f.. If you leave your job to start your own business, and you pay
yourself
a minimal salary until the business prospers, the court needn’t grant
you
child-support relief. It may lecture you about “putting your children
first.”

g.. If you remarry and have children with your new wife, the court
needn’t grant you child-support relief. It may lecture you again, this
time about not bringing more children into the world when you already
have children enough to support. And if your new wife works, the court
may look at her income as an indirect source of more child support.

h.. In the meantime, your ex may claim that your children’s needs
have
increased significantly, and she’ll seek to increase your payments.
You
will have to prove that you can’t afford the increase, and it won’t be
enough to show that your income hasn’t increased significantly. If it
has,
your ex needn’t show that the children’s needs have increased
correspondingly.

i.. If your wages are not withheld and you fail to pay your child
support,
the state will garnish your pay, slap liens on your property,
intercept
your
tax refunds, report you to credit agencies, suspend your driver’s,
professional and business licenses, hold you in contempt of court, put
your face on a wanted poster, throw you in jail and deny you food
stamps.
But if your ex doesn’t spend that very same support on the children,
the
state will do … nothing.

j.. Your child-support obligation doesn’t necessarily end when your
children grow up, leave home and become legal adults. In many states,
you may be ordered to contribute to their college tuition, room and
board
and their travel expenses, even though married parents can’t be
ordered
to pay for these things.

You also may owe your ex one further payment: part or all of her
“reasonable” attorney’s fees.

The court will try to eliminate any financial advantage you have in
selecting
a lawyer. It will not make her fritter away her equitable share of
your
property on something so inequitable as her attorney’s fees. It will
make
you fritter away your share. Equitable distribution, alimony and
child-
support law produce a net transfer of assets from you to your ex.
Child-custody law produces a net transfer of custody from you to your
ex.

From an economic point of view, divorce is a wealth-redistribution
racket
that forces fathers to make payments to mothers. From a social point
of
view, it is a family resocialization scheme that turns mothers into
state-sponsored single parents and fathers into infrequent visitors of
their estranged children.

When the economic and the social aspects of divorce law are netted,
fathers
are two-time losers. They must pay for the maintenance of women to
whom
they
no longer are married and for the support of children to whom they no
longer
are full-time parents — all the while having to carry the costs of
their
own
new households.

This skewed regime spawns strong reactionary forces. The strife which
the
divorce should have ended indeed has only just begun. Your ex will
warm to
calling all the shots. She may cancel your visitation now and then. If
she
’
s
truly mean-spirited, she’ll go much further. Under the cover of her
court-

appointed role as sole custodian, she’ll systematically sever your
relationship with the children: she’ll badmouth you to them; she’ll
schedule their extracurricular activities during your visitation time;
she even may accuse you of domestic violence and child abuse.

The authorities will act quickly to “protect” your children from you:
They’ll curtail your visitation during their investigation, you’ll be
restricted to being with your children only in the presence of a
supervisor, and you’ll be ordered to pay the supervisor’s fees.

In the end, your children themselves will refuse to spend any time
with you. Their brainwashing will be complete and irreversible.
They will be alienated from you — forever.

More efficiently, your ex may simply move with the children to a
distant community, with the law’s acquiescence.

As the struggle wears on, your frustrations will deepen. You’ll pass
up overtime work rather than earn extra income for your ex. You’ll be
tempted to “do a fade”: to flee the jurisdiction and disappear.

Your health will deteriorate. Your sleep will be disturbed. You’ll
feel fatigued and distracted. You’ll sweat a lot. You’ll develop
elusive internal pain. The tests will rule out a tumor. The pills
will help a little, but the pain won’t go away.

While the law pits your ex against you, its ultimate victims will be
your children. Your sons will be battered by the absence of their most
important role model. Your daughters will be gutted by the loss of
their
primary standard for opposite-sex comportment. They’ll seek
compensation
elsewhere — in aggressive, seductive or rebellious behavior. They’ll
develop deep-seated psychological problems. They’ll drop out of
school,
lose their jobs and get into trouble with the police.

You’ll know no peace for a generation.

The odds are high that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are
daunting that your divorce will disrupt your well-being. You’ll lose
your children and your property. You’ll pay alimony, child support
and attorney’s fees. You’ll be subject to state scrutiny over
employment
and spending decisions. You’ll have chronic health problems. You’ll
watch
helplessly as your children carry deep emotional scars into adulthood.

The odds are it doesn’t pay for you to marry and have kids.

And the odds are that you will.

ParentofChild,

Thank you for sharing on this thread. I know you have been fighting this fight
for a long, long time now. I remember you and your thoughtful posts on the JK forum and was supportive of your requests for a category for Men's Issues.
Your letters, posts and obvious love and dedication moves me more then words can describe. While I live in California if there is support that you need from the
forum or something I can do personally, please just ask. Your son is a very, very
lucky child to have a dedicated loving father like yourself. I hope he has the
opportunity to spend as much time as possible with you soon.

Know you are in my heart and prayers.

mtnmagic (Marie)

Consider that this forum has been under "Other Issues" in these message board groups, it only proves the stance that the overall Parental Rights are treated. The concern of the children and families has been put aside when compared to all the other issues as so demonstrated popular by these message boards. I believe this form "Parental Rights" Deserves it's own forum group such as "Families and Children" for which these threads will do well under. Yes, we need the spotlight on these issues.