After 40 years of dedicated failure, and because reporters only cover family court after the bloodshed, the public is now ready and opting for another, civil solution. The need was proven in the California Supreme Court decision Zelig vs. Los Angeles Superior Court; excerpt from AP
GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE FOR COURT VIOLENCE
of violence inside courthouses can't sue counties and sheriff's
departments charged with overseeing the buildings, the state Supreme
entities in general are not liable for failing to protect individuals
against crime, the court ruled in unanimously overturning an appeals
court decision. Allowing such lawsuits could expose government agencies
to liability on many of their properties, Chief Justice Ronald M.George
wrote. The case stemmed from a 1995 slaying of a woman inside the
downtown Los Angeles County courthouse.
Zelig, 40, who said she lived in mortal terror of her ex-husband, was
killed when Harry Zelig shot her in the chest after a divorce proceeding
in which he said she was trying to seize his car. The couple's 6 year
old daughter was seen shrieking in distress after the shooting as
bystanders raced for cover. The husband was later convicted and
sentenced to 29 years to life.
governments anxiously awaited Monday's court decision, fearing the
Supreme Court could open a Pandora's box of liability if it sided with
the appeals court. "The implications were very scary from the point of
view of what potentially could be the scope of liability for
municipalities," said attorney Steven J. Renick, who argued the case on
behalf of Los Angeles County.
groups criticized the ruling, saying women who use the courts for family
law matters --such as divorce, child custody and restraining orders--
are in danger. "These women are required to go to the courthouse, and
this is the only time they'll see their abuser," said LeAnna Gutierrez,
an attorney with the Calif. Women's Law Center. "They're required to
face the abuser and the state has no actual duty to protect them while
court said counties have "a duty to take reasonable steps to provide
safe courthouses to those who enter." But George wrote that the danger
faced by Zelig that her husband would shoot her "was the same inside the
courthouse as outside."
For safety's sake, return litigants to Civil Court - where families will be treated with the importance the court treats business litigants. Endfamilycourt.com
Because our children are too precious to trust to the state, as well as being the nation's most precious resource, it's time to to end family court.
Please email us if you are interested in participating in ending family court, which will restore a better working relationship between former spouses, as well as create a functioning judiciary.
Long overdue, ending family court means returning one's Constitutional rights to enjoy a family not micro-managed by the courts, which will also serve to end a wide array of cottage industries currently favored by existing family court jurists.. (See Tharp vs. Tharp - an excellent opinion by the one appellate court that took the time to weed through one very tangled web.)
Given the solution is both radically wonderful and long overdue, yes; we expect a full frontal assault.
Again, please contact us if you're interested in participating.
Content copyright . Personal Public Relations. All rights reserved.