Protecting Children Then and Now for Family Restoration

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ulterior motive.

Irena smuggled Jewish infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried. She also carried a burlap sack in the back of her truck, for larger kids.

Irena kept a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers, of course, wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 children.

Ultimately, she was caught, however, and the Nazi's broke both of her legs and arms and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she had smuggled out, in a glass jar that she buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived and tried to reunite the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. She was not selected, but was overshadowed by the winner, Al Gore, for his work on Global Warming. Later another politician, Barack Hussein Obama, won for his work as a community organizer for ACORN.

In MEMORIAM - 65 YEARS since the Second World War in Europe ended, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 2 million Poles, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated!

Protecting children then, may Irena’s example encourage more to be courageous now.

Family Restoration for Children of Failed Online Matches

Online dating has become a cultural phenomenon. With online dating websites quoting responsibility for nearly 5% of marriages in the U.S.[1] or claiming that hundreds of thousands of couples find love every year on their site[2], it is no wonder that people seeking true love with the hope of marriage turn to these services. Sometimes, however, the heartache is the only match they are left with. What is more saddening is when this negatively impacts children.

Kristy Gaffney is one such woman who searched such dating sights and is now fighting a custody battle she never imagined. Kristy is a single mother that began dating a man she met online. He wooed her with his claims of being a business man from a wealthy background, working for the C.I.A. She says he promised her marriage and all that she had ever hoped for. As their romantic relationship progressed, Kristy became pregnant, forever linking them together with the birth of their daughter. The baby’s father sought to sever that link by tricking her into singing away her parental rights. He did so by telling her that the paperwork she was signing was to preserve his rights as the baby’s father. Though Kristy read the documents, she was confused and relied on her love and trust in this man. Soon after she signed the documents, the man never returned her baby, telling her that he and his wife were in the final stages of adopting the baby.

Kristy took the man and his wife to court to invalidate the adoption. The judge found in favor of Kristy believing she did not know she was signing away her parental rights. The judge dismissed the adoption, invalidating it because the mother’s consent to permanently terminate parental rights was induced by fraud and duress. The baby’s father contests these allegations and has appealed the decision. The problem now is that the custody judge will not hear the case until the appeal has been heard, so custody remains with the deceptive father. This appeal could take 6 months. If the father’s appeal is denied, he may then appeal to the Supreme Court and that could take another year, leaving Kristy to see her 14 month old daughter only every other weekend as the custody order stands now. More of her story can be viewed here and read at MSNBC.

Kristy’s plea is one for family restoration; to place a daughter with her rightful, biological and intended mother. Kristy fears that in this limited custody her daughter “is missing out on her [real] mother.” She is afraid of the damage that will be done during the drawn out judicial process as her daughter becomes acquainted and accustomed to a home built on schemes and deception. Her greatest concern is how this will negatively impact her daughter even if she does regain full custody.

The attorney for the father makes a plea to Kristy that “it is not in the best interest of her daughter to make a media sensation about this baby.” This raises the question of what exactly is the best interest of the child? Many states have statutes that have a list of factors that a court will look to in determining custody of a child. In the state of Pennsylvania, where Kristy is from, a few factors include: the need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life,[3] the attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent,[4] and which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.[5] These standards set forth by the court are essential to family restoration. Here, Kristy’s ability to provide and maintain a loving, stable community for her daughter weighs in her favor. The court will need to weigh the possibility, given the circumstances surrounding this custody battle, that the father will turn Kristy’s baby against her, alienating her from her child, as he has already tried to take her away from her mother completely.

In looking at just a few of these standards, the best interest for Kristy’s daughter is to be reunified with her birth mother so that family restoration can begin. Child custody may not be immediately identified as or associated with family restoration, but it certainly can be.

The judicial system may seem an unlikely place to find family restoration amidst divorce hearings and custody battles. However, it is the court that has the power to insure restoration of a broken family when a child has been unjustly taken from his or her rightful parent. The court can work justice, and return a child to a loving, stable, and nurturing home where she can best develop into who she was created to be. Matches made with fraudulent intent not only harm individuals, but the children who may result, who more than anything need a strong, loving, authentic family to guard their best interests.

This excellent post is the courtesy of guest blogger Alana Martinez, Regent University Juris Doctor Candidate 2012, also currently in Regent Law’s Child Advocacy Practicum.

________________________________________

[1] www.eharmony.com
[2] www.match.com
[3] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(4)
[4] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(8)
[5] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(9)

Marriage Unconstitutional? or Necessary for Family Strength?

Marriage has been hotly debated this week - constitutionally, legislatively, judicially, and in the hearts and minds of many individuals in America. Here are just a few pieces of information on this raging battle.

New Jersey Court rejected a claim at to dismiss a lawsuit charging the inequality of the State's Civil Union statute. See http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/02/nj-court-reverses-partial-dismissal-of-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit.php. "The court's ruling came four days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act, [creating same sex marriage in the State,] was passed by the New Jersey State Assembly by a vote of 42-33, and was subsequently approved by the State Senate 24-16. Approval of the legislation marks a shift from the legislature's previous position concerning same-sex marriage, as a similar bill was defeated in the state Senate last year."

Governor Christie, however, has very firmly answered challenges to his veto on MSNBC's Morning Jo at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGjHR2f4Jzo&feature=youtube_gdata. The Governor would like to see the people of his State vote on a referendum, rather than trusting judges to this decision, and he would like to see the President of the United States clarify his position on marriage.

In Ocean Grove, New Jersey a judge ruled in January against a Christian retreat house that refused to provide the venue for a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows "some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals." See www.LifeSiteNews.com.

In New Hampshire, a bill is now pending that would protect vendors and businesses who do not wish to provide service to same sex couples as a matter of religious conviction and freedom. See the article at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1264.html.

Last week Washington State became the eighth U.S. jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage, which is legal only in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia, all by judicial order. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are currently legal in Maine, Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii, California, Wisconsin, Nevada, Oregon and Washington and await ratification in Rhode Island. These have become law by legislation, along with same sex marriage legislation in New York, rather than by referendum of the people of those jurisdictions.

And a federal judge ruled last week that the Defense of Marriage Act protecting States' recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. Read the Jurist article at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/02/federal-judge-finds-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional.php.
The Justice Department is also conflicted with DOMA because of the new military mandates on recognition of same sex relationships. It will not defend the Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs in a lawsuit filed last year intended to extend rights and benefits to married same-sex couples in the military. Attorney General Eric Holder informed House Speaker Rep. John Boehner by letter on Friday that the DoJ would not defend against the suit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA, a federal law that explicitly defines marriage as union between one man and one woman, is currently what prevents spouses of gay troops from receiving marriage benefits. The administration last year said it would stop defending DOMA against lawsuits, but that decision did not extend to the military or the Veterans Administration.

AG Holder said he determined that DOMA provisions "as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment [of the Constitution]." He added, "The legislative record of [the DOMA] provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans' benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans," Holder states in the letter. "Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA. "I will instruct [DoJ] attorneys not to defend those provisions against the equal protection claims" of the lawsuit, he wrote. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network represents the same sex couples, filing a lawsuit in Massachusetts in October on behalf of current servicemembers and veterans. A month later the organization sought a summary judgement against the government, arguing that the material facts of the case – that gay married couples were not being treated equally under the law – were not in dispute. Just last week U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns granted a 60-day delay in the case to give the government time to respond. Even with Holder's decision, SLDN spokesman Zeke Stokes said nothing will likely change since the 60 day stay remains in effect. You may read this entire article at
http://www.military.com/news/article/doj-wont-fight-for-gay-spouse-benefits.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl.

Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown, the federal challenge to California's democratically established marriage protection amendment, which effectively struck down the expressed will of over 7 million Californians who voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The future for marriage in the nation is far from decided by these recent events. For this reason, the Alliance Defense Fund has encrouaged Sunday, February 26 as a day of prayer for the legal and spiritual warfare surrounding marriage. Marriages across our nation need to be strengthened, upholding God's design for marriage individually in private homes, and corporately in the laws of our nation and states. Learn more at www.TellADF.org/marriage .

Marriage should be not only constitutionally protected, but it is indeed necessary for family strength, and for family restoration in our nation.

Protecting Women, Children and Families with Ultrasound Testing Fosters Family Restoration

State legislation to protect women and children is important to family restoration. Virginia is another example of a state taking measures to insure informed consent is authentic for women choosing the dramatic decision of abortion. The current legislation on the use of ultra sound testing prior to any abortion in Virginia is an important component of comprehensive protection for women. The New York Times reports on Virginia House Bill 462 on Abortion, noting that the Virginia Senate, “which is split evenly along party lines, adopted the bill earlier this month. The bill, which could pass the Republican-led House of Delegates as early as Tuesday, is one of the stronger ultrasound laws passed by states in recent years. If it is adopted, Virginia will become the eighth state to require ultrasounds before abortions, a rule that anti-abortion forces hope will cause some women to change their minds but that women’s advocates call an effort to shame women and interfere with their privacy.” You can read the entire NY Times piece here.

The facts of the bill include:

1. That an ultrasound be done prior to an abortion, only after a woman gives consent to the abortion procedure. No woman who is merely contemplating abortion is ever forced to undergo the test – indeed, the reality is that most pregnant women would like the benefit of an ultrasound.
2. Several states already have this requirement; Virginia is not breaking any new legal ground.
3. Any sound medical practice requires the proper tests to be done. Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation state that an ultrasound is necessary to determine the age and size of the unborn child to ensure the health of the mother.
4. The ultrasound test is standard medical procedure, a fact confirmed in committee testimony by Planned Parenthood representatives.

This legislation has already passed the state Senate and needs only one more vote by the full House of Delegates before going to Governor McDonnell for his signature. Rhetorical sound bites do no justice to this issue, nor to the women, children and families that will be affected by this decision.

To see more about this pending protection, see WVEC’s report on it featuring Professor Lynne Marie Kohm.

Facts, rather than rhetoric, are critical to the protection of women, children and their families; ultrasound testing and other measures to afford women truly informed consent will foster family restoration.