Family Court Friday

About Family Court Friday

2021-12-22T22:29:00.000-08:00

Family Court Friday™ is a blog dedicated to persons involved in family court litigation. Developed by April Gabriellé, the best Pre-trial Prep Coach, author and Single Parent Counselor™. Weekly after visiting family courtrooms across the country, April offers insightful commentary to bring awareness and access to key resources. With more than 15yrs of experience as a family advocate, academic adviser and mediator Gabriellé offers assistance with a plethora of services at family court, including accompanying individuals who are afraid or intimated to the courthouse and/or their hearings and through the court process.

Gabriellé has faced a myriad of challenges confronting families on their journey navigating family court. “Family court is all-too-familiar”, says Gabriellé having endured two divorces, custody, child support, and domestic violence. She is the best Parenting Coordinator and Life Coach suited to work closely with most families, guiding them through mental stressors, managing transitioning home life and an increasingly difficult transition and demanding court hearings.

To receive full benefits of Family Court Friday services, April strongly encourages prospective clients to consider using her services as early as possible into the process.

April Gabriellé imparts clients with invaluable, transferable skills for everyday life.

Subscribe to our weekly updates, and we invite your questions and comments.

For more info - admin@thesingleparentcounsel.com

MOM Seeks Sole Custody-San Diego county

2021-08-05T03:50:00.000-07:00

Coming off the escalator there seemed to be hundreds of people waiting in front of a courtroom, next to the one I planned to visit. It was crazy, people everywhere. I was looking for the media because there were so many people. As I waited for the bailiff to open the doors, my curiosity got the best of me. So I got some heart and asked the guy standing next to me. As soon as I started, their courtroom door opened, “What is this case for? Why are there so many people?” “It’s a domestic violence murder; we’re here for the victim.”

My heart dropped to my stomach. “Oh, I’m so sorry,” he didn’t respond and flowed into the courtroom with everyone else. I wanted to go into the room so badly to hear the case, but all types of emotions came over me, fear, sadness as I recollected my own experience. Although I am interested in reviewing domestic violence cases, I knew then that I was not ready for this one. That on that day, walking into that courtroom to hear the case was not a good idea for me. I continued to wait for the family court doors to open.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA
Judge P. Rosenstein

1:30pm – Bailiff opens the door, begin to call the calendar. I immediately find a spot, with a clear view, and close enough to listen carefully. I’ve been through this rodeo before, so it’s easy to remember the procedures. Yet it’s quite comforting being present as an observer and not a litigant. As I survey the room, checking out those in attendance; i.e., body language, signs of nervousness, where people sit, if one is looking side eyed at another or trying everything in their power to avoid looking in a certain direction at all. Across from me, sits a woman with a petite built, dark hair, nicely dressed. She must be a litigant.

First case the parties are in pro-per the Bailiff asks the parties if they already participated in mediation.

1:40pm – Interpreter present and waiting for litigants
1:45pm – Party enters the courtroom and the Bailiff ask mother if the father is present?

Mendoza v Mendoza – Pro-per
Petitioner: Mother Respondent: Father (not present)

Judge Rosenstein states that the mother filed a Request for Custody Visitation and asks if proof of service was filed. The mother confirmed yes, it was, but the respondent was not present in court. The judge ordered service as complete and began reviewing the file, and asked if the father disappeared. The mother stated yes and request both full and physical custody.

RULING: Judge Rosenstein granted sole legal and physical custody with reasonable visitation. The mother says she is disappointed that the father did not show up in court as she was hoping he would.
Judge Rosenstein appeared very confident in her decision stating that she is unable to grant and enforce sole physical custody but understands that the mother requires legal custody in order to make legal decisions on behalf of the child’s medical, education, and housing on behalf of the child. The judge thanked the mother for attending and hoped the father becomes involved in his child’s life.

Wow! That is it? That was quick. The mother exits the courtroom, seeming relieved to go on with her day. I definitely know what that feels like, however, you can never gauge these type of circumstances because as long as there’s another concerned party, especially concerning family court, it’s probably not offer. The father can return at any time, deciding to file for a modification order.

Single Parent Counselor Commentary

Paternity, Mom's Tears, Dads Insincere Income Declaration

2021-08-05T01:37:00.000-07:00

This case argues that the answer rests in visitation, more specifically the mother attest, a weakened relationship with the daughter due to seeing her less. The most important reason children from single parent families remain so vulnerable is the inconsistencies of structure and security between one parents.

After leaving my part-time job, I decided to arrive at the San Diego county courthouse about 1:00 pm knowing I’d have enough time to catch a few cases from the morning docket. However, also remembering that there are cases in the afternoon too. Arriving to the courthouse in the morning is often best because you get the opportunity to follow the cases transferred to other judges

Check in time 1:40pm.
Bailiff conducts roll call, checks in litigants and gives info re: status conferences, incomplete cases and those called to other courtrooms to further discuss their cases. Enters an attorney who hands the bailiff proof of service for the first case.

1:50pm - Waiting for the judge the bailiff calls Mesa vs. Mesa. He explains to the couple that their case will not be heard because they need to attend FRC-Family Centered Case Resolution. The parties exit the courtroom.

2:00pm - Judge appears and begins calling cases from the docket.

Pro-per party ask for confidentiality and request a fee waiver with an income of $2,600 per month. The judge states that she is above the allowable income level; she will pay $35 per month.

PATERNITY, VISITATION, CHILD SUPPORT & ATTORNEY FEES

The judge inquires with the litigants if the issue with paternity was settled. She proceeds with giving parent’s and mom’s attorney their rights, in accordance with the. Judge asks if the parties waive their [next] rights. Both parties agreed to waive their rights to the testing. “Mother were you married to anyone else when the child was born,” Judge ask mom.

“No”. The father continues to look straight ahead as the judge continues to review the case and refers to a family court service mediation agreement on 5/30/2014.
“Both parties reached an agreement?”
“No,” replies Mom
“Yes,” says father

Mother has 58% primary physical custody:
3:30-7:00 pm/Monday–Friday with father

Mother’s attorney requests increase:
3:30–6:00pm - Monday–Friday to prepare for bed and so she can spend more time with their child.

Every Wednesday night the child is with the father and the mother is concerned this interferes with school. The father has to drop off child at 6am.

The judge looks at mom, “Are you willing to compensate the father for losing a night? Looks back down at the case file. “You cannot deny father an overnight with your daughter.” “Daughter returns home at 7:00pm,” says mom sounding a bit distraught.

Judge states, “But if you have 50/50 custody you wouldn’t see your daughter for an entire week”.

Mom feels she has more family support for their daughter. Judge asks about the original visitation agreement:

Sunday, Monday, Tuesday night

This causes mom to cry, stating that she doesn’t have much time to spend with her daughter. Judge continues.

School breaks, alternate weekends– Sunday 4pm–Wed 4pm.

Mom is allowed one day before returning daughter at 4pm. Judge continues to ask a relevant question, “What is the justification for changing this order?” “Because the mom has less time to spend with their daughter,” says mom’s attorney. In an effort towards balance and resolution the judge, ask mom another pertaining to modifying the visitation schedule, “What about phone contact during the week she is not with her?”

Mom’s attorney contests [next] another item before the court regarding his justification for increased custody, “The child is without competent adult. When the father is not present, his 13-year-old daughter from another relationship comes to care for the daughter.”

Thinking the judge will turn to inquire with dad about this allegation, however the judge asks the mom if she too has teenager caring for their daughter. Mom says she has a teenager helping with their daughter; however, there are other adults present as well. The teenager is not alone.

Judge asks the father if a 13-year-old is babysitting their daughter when he is not present. Father confirms this when kids are on break. Judge inquires about the child’s safety, such as issue with choking, etc. Father says this was never an issue until today’s court appearance and if the father agrees that, the child needs to be with a competent adult.

Judge asks mom about other concerns. Mom states, "Father says Wednesday pickup from grand mom and drop off at school on Thursday

Attorney rebuttals stating that the child returned home at home at 6:30am.

Court adopts the 5/30/14 mediation agreement. Joint Legal with no fine tune adjustments.
Judge ordered that a competent adult, not a 13-year-old babysit

CHILD SUPPORT –

Mom’s monthly income: $3,426 + $40 OT + $41 commission

Judge asks father if he agrees with mom’s declaration regarding her monthly income. Mom submits pay stubs attaching union dues $36 and $100 mandatory per month. Judge asks father if he was served a copy of the Income and Expense statement showing earnings as University, medical = $35.21 per month.

Judge asks father for his Income and Expense declaration

Attorney, “Respondent doesn’t have copies of check stubs.” Father slowly explains how he is OK with what the judge shows as his earnings. The judge has gross earnings, not net from his pay stub from prior week and displays a missed day of work. Judge, “Why do we have this in advance as of 7/13/15 – YTD - $36,767.44 for 6 ½ months? The father’s pay stub shows $5,655.99 per month. Father has no additional earnings. Mom’s attorney says he has no way of confirming respondent’s earnings.

Judge sets a review hearing on the matter.

Father has no union dues, pays $374 per month for health insurance and has no mandatory deductions from his paycheck.

o    42% single – 1 exemption, wages are $6,555 per month.
o    Mom has two other kids, 4 exemptions
o    Father has court order $320 per month child support

Judge asks father to show counsel on the form his order to pay child support. While trying to make sense of the documents before her, “This document doesn’t make sense, $75.39 weekly?” Father asks the judge to look up the info on the computer. “Was this child support established downtown under oath for $326.69 per month?”

Judge turns to mother’s attorney asking if he wants to rebuttal. The attorney says the father has no Income and Expense Declaration form. The judge orders father to submit a document from child support with the Income and Declaration form.

The judge trying to make sense reviews child support as $224.00 per month for April, May June and July and asks the father if made these payments.
“Yes”. $315 per month”
“No arrears?” asks the judge.

Mom also, requests attorney’s fees paid of $3,000. The father disagrees. Judge ordered via 2030 Family Code stating the father has the ability to pay $1,500 at $50 per month.

In closing, as move through family court, the problem is not in the details of the case but absolute sensibleness. Upon closer inspection, it remains obvious that most if not all single parents will be required to assume some type of a leadership role in their families as they transition through unpredictable changes.

QUANTITY TIME vs. QUALITY TIME

TEXAS DAD DIVORCE GRANTED - AWOL WIFE (VIDEO)

2019-03-14T19:20:00.037-07:00

Bexar County Courthouse,
San Antonio Texas
Judge Stephanie Walsh

I was looking forwarded to observing divorce cases in Texas. Primarily because I was told by former female petitioners, that Texas favored husbands and treat wives as chattel. Many having little to NO rights during the divorce process. Wow but my visit today really opened up my eyes. I assumed that all courthouses functioned the same procedurally at least.

Meaning that once I perused the court calendar, found a case of interest, then I'd proceed to the courtroom to listen in. Well, it's a tad bit different with Bexar County courts in San Antonio, Texas.

The morning calendar was quite full, so I decided to attend afternoon court to avoid the morning traffic. With my daughter in tow, we drove around the courthouse a couple of times, located parking on the street parking in front of a beautiful red brick historical building. Put money in the meter, approached the stairs leading to the courthouse, walked through the doors and security check. This is when we noticed how sparse it was. The sheriffs were very kind, talkative, reminding me of that good ole Texas hospitality.

Finally, we found room 109. Let me tell you, when I enter a court room I'm like a kid with a new toy. New experiences, give me a natural high because I’m always excited about what I might discover in the courtroom. Everybody has a story, each visit is a different experience, e.g., the parties involved, types of cases, aesthetics, the judge’s demeanor, attorneys behavior (if present), bailiffs attentiveness, etc. Room 109 was much larger than most courtrooms I’ve visited in California. I located seating on a bench in the corner, where it was easy for me to remain incognito, spread out, yet able to hear well enough.

As I quickly prepare to take notes, it appears the judge is in the middle of a conference so I was unable to hear or understand the conversation. One by one, several litigants are called to approach the bench, all requesting translators. I suppose the microphone was turned off because we were unable to hear the details of the cases. I was an earshot away, but still difficult to hear. The clerk asks the parties a series of questions pertaining to protective orders and their divorce; most of their responses were “No".

If you learn nothing else while visiting a courtroom, it is that patience is a must. Yet, I was growing more and more frustrated trying to listen and retain enough quality information to share with you for Family Court Friday. I didn’t want to waste much more of my time, so within a few moments I followed a Bailiff out of the courtroom to inquire about the court procedures.

After the Bailiffs' advice I returned inside, sat on the bench and when the judge announced, “We are beginning the 10:30am court". She also apologized for the delay. But, oh my, these two darn cement pillars in front of me are a huge obstacle. "If you cannot see me than I cannot see you”, says the judge.

“Is Mr. Holmes here, Mr. Watson?”

An attorney stands and responds, “I heard you ask for Mr. Watson, I’m neither”.

It’s been approximately an hour-and-a-half, I’m surveying the courtroom noticing it’s less and less populated and I'm worried that I am not going to retrieve the substantial content that I need for the day. So, guess what? I walked out of the courtroom, when I noticed different people standing in the foyer. I walked up to a young woman with a child, “Are you here for a divorce”. She bluntly responded in a very, don’t come up to me tone, “No”! Still looking around I don't see anyone, then out of my peripheral vision (side eye), I notice an attractive guy, with two little girls. I followed behind him as he entered the glass doors, into the foyer, and back into Room 109.

I took a seat on the front bench. I'm not sure why I was so anxious to hear his case. The judge called, “Mr. Marcus …. “ he approached the bench with those two cute little girls and the clerk began asking the petitioner the same questions as above. The next thing I heard was the judge granting Marcus’ divorce. OMG! Now I’m really confused. But, if you don't know me, April kicked it up a notch .. I was on a mission…

Click on the video below to hear Marcus' story.... I was impressed..

Father Refuses to Lose Current Visitation

2016-01-15T07:30:00.000-08:00

Petersons– Modification of Visitation
Petitioner: Mom Respondent: Father
Judge P Rosenstein

Petitioner mom Peterson is seeking to modify an original visitation order and the Respondent, father has some objections. They have two boys, one, in primary school and the eldest in high school.

As the hearing begins, Judge Rosenstein has reviewed the mediator’s response accompanied with an exhibit of visitation schedule and asked if both parties are in receipt of the same documents and the mediators report. She also asks the mom if she agrees or disagrees with the visitation schedule:

Father picks kids up from school on Tuesday/Thursday and drops off at home at 8:30pm. Prior to this change, the drops off days were Monday/Tuesday/Thursday. Monday was taken away.

Mom prefers 8:00pm drop off so the kids can prepare for showers, food and homework for school the next day. Judge Rosenstein asks the father if he helps the kids with their homework. The father states that the school helps with the homework because the youngest child has an IEP (Individualized Education Program). The older child has AP classes and the mother says both need to be in bed by 9:30pm.

On Thursday night, the father takes the children to attend youth night at church and needs the exception to drop children off at 8:30pm. Mom is very concerned about the kids completing their homework and says the eldest child states the dad does not allow homework on youth night.

The judge states that homework needs to be completed and asks the father when is youth night? The father states, on Thursdays from 6pm – 8pm and that the kids have time to complete their homework prior to attending youth night. The judge commends both parents for managing three boys and that they are doing well and she asks mom are there any other issues that she needs to be addressed?

Mom states that when the boys are on vacation, during school breaks, the father has to work, and he is scheduled to have the boys during this time. The youngest boy stays two nights per week; however, the mom is seeking that they maintain the same schedule as if the children were in school and have the father pickup; with alternative visitation weekends and drop off at nights.

The judge agrees that the times can be adjusted and the youngest son should spend additional time with the father. She orders them to stick with the original time-share: Friday – Sunday weekend and Monday/Tuesday – evening drop off.

Further, the judge clarified that the mediator’s recommendation of the previous schedule includes sharing school breaks equally, replaced with no alternate weekends and maintained traveling vacation time. She also stated that the eldest son is “getting his own mind,” and mom is providing childcare.

RULING: Judge orders that the eldest son have Tuesday/Thursday drop offs and alternating weekends.

Father asserts that he misses his week because the youngest son wants more time and the eldest doesn’t want any changes at all.

Mom says the boys are afraid to speak to the mediator, the youngest one cries stating he thought the father would read his responses to the mediator and get upset.

The judge asks the father to return to the original school schedule; again, the father reiterates if he has to agree to this than he wants to reinstate Monday’s visitation.

This case is conflicting and confusing and I’m watching as the judge contemplates both parents’ requests. She says, the father doesn’t want to lose his time and he filed a motion to get more time with the older boys because he felt that when they become 18 they’re gone. The judge is still struggling with trying to balance different issues regarding the older boys. She reminded him that the older boys told the mediator that they don’t feel comfortable staying at dad’s one bedroom apartment.

Dad reiterates that he can see his sons and drop them home later. The judge states, “I feel really dumb right now” because she is unclear as to what he is getting with the eldest boy if he wants to maximize his time.

RULING: The judge ordered that the sons keep schedule Tuesday/Thursday every week and alternating weekends with the father.

The mother emphasizes that the boys don’t want to go with the father and it’s always a battle. If they are forced to go, they want to stay home. Again, the father is sticking to his guns, to keep the original schedule – Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and every other weekend.

Judge Rosenstein mentions that the boys are high achievers and do more stuff with the mom.

RULING: The judge ordered to use the mediator’s schedule and ordered that mom call dad, if the eldest boys want to go they can.

As they left the courtroom, I’m not certain that the dad was truly happy with the court order. You know I’m thinking to myself, somebody is going to get a tongue lashing later on. You know one of those conversations when men think judges side with the mothers. Well I’m here to tell you that is one of the biggest falsehoods in the history of family court and I have myself to use as an example. Listen to my commentary for more information. Bring your comments.

Single Parent Counselor Commentary

Woman Convicted for Knowingly Transmitting HIV

2016-01-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

In light of Charlie Sheen's recent HIV disclosure, I thought it prudent to bring the case of People v Jensen to our memory. Mr. Sheen is a necessary reminder that we can't judge a person by their looks as to whether or not they are carriers of the virus. In addition, regardless of the progression of HIV/AIDS research and the number of people living long lives, there remain folk out there who are irresponsible and vindictive.

Nadja Benaissa, singer of German girl band "No Angels", sits in a courtroom in Darmstadt, Germany, Monday, Aug. 16, 2010. The German singer has gone on trial accused of causing bodily harm by having unprotected sex despite knowing she was HIV-positive. Nadja Benaissa is alleged to have infected a man with the virus in 2004. Boris Roessler/AP Photo

In the case of People v Jensen, 222 Mich App 575; 564 NW2d 192 (1997), the defendant Brenda Lee Jensen was charged with three counts of knowing that she was HIV positive. She was found guilty of engaging in consensual sexual activity with a partner without informing him of her positive HIV status supported by MCL 333.5210; MSA 14.15(5210). The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years and eight months to four years imprisonment on each of the three counts.

Upon conviction, the defendant filed an appeal to have the case heard by the Supreme Court on the basis that the judgment was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court vacated in part the judgment and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further decision on the merits of the question whether MCL 333.5210; MSA 14.15(5210) is constitutional (People v. Jensen, 1997).

Prosecutions and Arrests for HIV Exposure in the United States

The defendant stresses that it is unconstitutional overbroad to accuse her of a crime for refusing to notify her sexual partners of having AIDS or is HIV positive because the sexual intercourse included both consensual and non-consensual acts and 2) there it fails to require intent to cause harm.

The defendant argues that it is unconstitutional, in that, the statute does not specify intent to harm and she cannot be held criminally liable if she did not understand the consequences. The Michigan Court of Appeal upheld the original conviction.

To support its decision in an effort to protect the public's welfare, the court referred to the case of People v. Lardie, (1996). The Supreme Court found that a person, who operates a vehicle while intoxicated, could criminally responsible for causing the death of another; based on the fact they knew they were intoxicated while driving, even without a specific intent to cause harm.

Son of The Myth of the Broken Home- co-authors HIV science publication: Purification of the COP9 Signalosome Complex and Binding Partners from Human T Cells

Dolatowski, Hall & Schmalleger (2010) describe mens rea (intent), aka the guilty mind when a person knowingly acts with reckless and neglectful behavior and that it is said to be present when a person has knowledge and knows the direct consequences of his or her own actions (p 45). In addition, "A person who acts negligently, and thereby endangers others, may be found guilty of a crime when harm occurs, even though no negative consequences were intended" (Dolatowski, et al, 2010 p 46).

Furthermore, the defendant's act is liable because she was conscious about her actions; the defendant stated that she did not want the relationship to dissolve. If the act is not conscious and without intent, it remains liable and criminally neglectful. Many behavioral scientists question if the offending behavior falls under unconscious causation and if so, can consciousness be the immediate cause of behavior? Maybe this is why not many behaviorist or psychologists are expert witnesses in these cases. Nevertheless, I concur with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes comment, Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked (p 47)

One international case is similar to People v Jensen, 222 Mich App 575; 564 NW2d 192 (1997), defendant Stephen Kelly of Glenochil Scotland, was one of 14 incarcerated drug users infected with HIV by sharing needles with other inmates. Due to his knowledge of being HIV positive, he participated in the prison’s program receiving counseling, testing, etc. The defendant engaged in unprotected sex with a female, infecting her with the virus. The Glenochil Court sentenced the defendant to five years of imprisonment for recklessly transmitting HIV. This sentence is said to be harsh according to international standards.

In conclusion, I support the decision of the aforementioned cases because anyone who engages in sexual intercourse, with the knowledge of their AIDS or HIV positive status, has jeopardized the health and well-being of that partner, an act that can lead to death. The accused should not only endure criminal prosecution but civilly as well, providing restitution to the victim. This is a very self-centered crime and although the courts provide some monetary relief to the victims, but there many variables to take into consideration,

Prosecution of someone for transmitting HIV if there is protection. What if the condom breaks? Are transmissions of other known sexual diseases open for prosecution as well? What about when doctors misdiagnose someone with AIDS such as the case with Kaiser many years ago. Are the hospitals and/or physicians criminally liable? It will be interesting to see how these cases will evolve.

Bird, Sheila M., & Brown, Andrea JL. (2001). Criminalization of HIV transmission: Implications for public health in Scotland. British Medical Journal, 323(7322), 1174-7. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Health Module.

Coffey, G. (2009). Codifying the meaning of 'intention' in the criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law, 73(5), 394-413.)

Dolatowski, J., Hall, D. & Schmalleger, F. (2010), Criminal Law Today, 4th Edition: Prentice Hall

People v Jensen, 222 Mich App 575; 564 NW2d 192 (1997). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mi&vol=appeals\082898\jensen&invol=2

Note: This article has been modified for the general audience. The original writing with many more citations, purposed for a MS Criminal Justice (Law) class.

Courts Agree Spanking OK

2016-01-08T07:00:00.000-08:00

In The Myth of the Broken Home - Guidebook for Single Parents I have a chapter dedicated to the "Whuppins & Spankins" and how I used this as a form of discipline for my two children. My objectives are a little different than what I experienced as a child. My parents rarely spanked me, however I remember having my mouth washed out with soap, and being asked to go outside and pick a switch off the tree (although my mom didn't use it).

Over the years, I have encountered families from all walks of live who are afraid to spank their unruly children. I hear, "Oh I can't because I'll go to jail" or "It doesn't help". Although these families consult my services to assist them with discipline, I refuse to insist that they spank their children. Why not? Well, because I am uncertain as to their own upbringing and I'm not there to see if the punishment is even warranted.

In the case of Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services vs Jessica G the Court of Appeals in California, IN RE DM, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 2015
vacated the juvenile court's decision for reasonable parental discipline doctrine.

Public Domain: Old Lady Lived in a Shoe - Mother Goose

The Department of Children and Family Services conducted two separate investigations regarding the mother. One, after a neighbor called alleging the mother was yelling obscenities and beating her children to the point their begged her to stop. During this investigation, several people were interviewed including the mother, children, teachers, babysitters, a doctor and family members stating they never saw bruises on the children. The mother agreed that she yelled at and spanked her children with a sandal when they refused to comply with former attempts of discipline.

In 2014, one of the children's fathers entered the mothers home, beat and raped her in front of the children. The Department of Children and Family Services asked that the juvenile court take jurisdiction of the children stating the mother failed to protect the children during this act of violence and was responsible for keeping the children safe. Preceding this the court found that because the mother repeatedly spanked her kids and hit them with her shoe is not a form of discipline and order her to attend support groups, parenting classes and counseling.

The California Court of Appeal concluded it necessary to apply the reasonable parental discipline doctrine when considering how parents raise their children, considering reasonable and age appropriate discipline. In California, spanking is not considered abuse. Although there was no evidence of bruising or other physical injury, one child expressed fear when the mother hit him.

Click here to read case in its entirety:

COMMENTARY:
As a parent, if you are honest with yourself, you can probably relate to the mother's position. When I couldn't muster up "The Look" quick enough I yelled at my kids. Maybe not obscenities but I'm sure there were times when I wanted to. I've spanked my children, more with my hand, but also with a belt on their butts with clothes on. However, not all children need need the same type of discipline, for example, my son didn't require much physical discipline at all. But, there was an occasional snatching and popping. My daughter required a more hands on approach shall we say, or just the appearance of seeing the belt hanging on the door handle or around my neck was enough. My mom use to say, "She is such a good child." I'd respond, "You'd be good too if you got whuppins almost every day." Of course when they reach a certain age whuppins and spankins should be null and void.

It is ludicrous to me for the courts to punish a victim for not protecting their children amidst being abused. I was naive to this when Child Protective Services questioned my children following my abuse? I had an idea why they deemed it necessary, and I didn't fear it, but I was a tad bit offended at first. I always wonder why the courts treat domestic abuse different than stranger abuse. So if a stranger were to enter the mothers home, with the children present and beat and rape her would she have been accused of not protecting her children? How does one gauge this? How does a parent protect their children, who are in the comfort of their home and someone, even baby daddy comes through the door and abuses the mother. Whose at fault here?

At the end of the day protecting our children has to be first! If you would like a free chapter of Whuppins & Spankins send email to webmail@themythofthebrokenhome.com

Client Reviews; J Geter

2016-01-07T22:48:00.000-08:00

Family Court Friday: Client Review - Disabled, single parent dad, J. Geter thanks Single Parent Counselor, April Gabriellé for assisting him and advocating on his behalf Superior Court of California County of San Diego court. Mr. Geter was in a crisis situation regarding his living arrangements. Gabriellé was able to review documents, and explain to Mr. Geter the urgency required for his current situation. Although Mr. Geter's family retained an attorney for another matter pertaining to his case, she also referred him to an attorney who could best assist him.

You can watch the meeting between Mr. Geter and Ms. Gabriellé in up coming videos. Here is his testimony following his court hearing. Mr. Geter, the family and their attorney were very pleased with April Gabriellé assisting Mr. Geter.

The Myth of the Broken Home - Guidebook for Single Parents

2016-01-07T10:30:00.000-08:00

In The Myth of the Broken Home, author April Gabriellé has authored a must-have guide for single parents who are seeking to learn more about successful, effective parenting in any situation.

'Single parents face many challenges and often, these parents buy into the myth that the best parents are part of a mother-father team. Sadly, many parents believe it's impossible to succeed and this can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy,' explained author April Gabriellé.

She added, 'The reality is that with the right approach, parents can raise happy, healthy children who grow into thriving, responsible and successful adults. You don't need to be from a privileged background and you don't need to be a super parent. You simply need the right approach and that's precisely what I've worked to provide in this book.'

But, if anyone would have told me that I would be a single parent today, I would have probably slapped them for insulting me. Are you serious! Not I. I mean who can honestly say that one of their goals in life is to be a single parent. That would be ludicrous. No, not Ludicrous the rapper, ludicrous as in crazy. Actually, I was never one of those little girls who sat and dreamed of marriage and a baby carriage, and I never..........

The Myth of the Broken Home provides single parents with practical tips and advice as they work to build the confidence and inner strength that's required to raise their children the right way. It's precisely what parents need to buck the trend, proving that single-parent families don't necessarily need to fall into the stereotypical 'broken home' rut. Success is possible. Author April Gabriellé will get you started down the right path.

Purchase your copy today! Look out for new titles coming soon, including The Myth of the Broken Home - 2nd Edition.

To book April Gabriellé contact:
Phone: 800-783-9764 ext. 504
email: hireapril@aprilgabrielle.com

Divorce-Kids-Domestic Violence & Forgiveness - Good Day Oregon (Video)

2016-01-06T01:34:00.002-08:00

April Gabriellé , The Single Parent Counselor and Author of The Myth of the Broken Home series shares co-parenting tips and forgiveness with Andy Carson on "Good Day Oregon" (KPTV)

Customer Feedback Survey

2015-11-07T17:25:00.000-08:00

Father Refuses to Lose Visitation with Sons

2015-10-10T20:29:00.000-07:00

Petitioner mom is seeking to modify a visitation order and the Respondent, father has some objections refusing to lose any time with his sons.

2015-09-12T21:23:00.000-07:00

“Quality time is better than quantity time.” NOT! Shared custody the right way.
Note: It was brought to my attention that former talk show Megyn Kelly used this topic and did not give me credit. It was used exactly as stated here and in my book The Myth of the Broken Home-Guidebook for Single Parents (2010)..

Mom Seeks Sole Custody Dad No Show!

2015-09-01T20:15:00.000-07:00

Do you think that petitioner mom received sole custody? Dad never appeared in court!

Interview with Dad Divorcing AWOL Wife

2015-08-20T01:52:00.000-07:00

AskAprilG | Mom's Tears, Dads Insincere Income Declaration

2015-08-03T19:45:00.000-07:00

Mom in tears not enough time with daughter. Father refuses to provide Income & Expense Declaration, disagrees with helping mom pay her attorney fees. Judge reprimands both mom and dad into reality.

Reach more clients, customers - Advertise here today!

2014-03-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

The Myth of the Broken Home Inspirational Attire

2013-08-07T00:36:00.000-07:00

The Myth of the Broken Home provides single parents with practical tips and advice as they work to build the confidence and inner strength that's required to raise their children the right way. Our line of inspirational clothing for parents, teens, kids and babies are encouraging visualization, because every family can use a little motivation.

Every Child Is a Blessing™

2013-08-07T00:35:00.002-07:00

Every Child Is a Blessing™ .