DECLARATION

WE BELIEVE that all Family Court stakeholders have a responsibility to open communication among all participants for the goal of the family courts to be realized. Each judicial circuit with administrative oversight should create a family law advisory group (“FLAG”) pursuant to Florida Supreme Court Order No. SC00-1410 (May, 2001) that is open to court staff, judges, attorneys, social service providers, local community leaders, and those who work within the family court system, and any other interested persons or organizations to provide support for and advise judges.

WE RESOLVE to usher in a new chapter in the history of the practice of family law, by inclusively reaching out to all interested persons or organizations who are supportive of and will provide advice and assistance to these family law advisory groups. At its meetings, the FLAG shall specifically require the attendance of all family court judges, magistrates, court administrators, the judicial circuit’s general counsel, pro se case supervisors, and policy makers from the state legislature, county sheriffs’ offices, Department of Children and Families, Florida’s Child Support Title IV-D Agency and Department of Revenue Office of Child Support Enforcement, and school boards.

WE RECOGNIZE that the family law system intends to provide for the protection of the child. However, the system often fails to adequately focus on the needs of the child who is the subject of parental litigation; in so doing, it often further damages the child and the family that the laws and processes are intended to protect. Family disputes should be resolved without causing additional emotional and/or economic harm to the child and family, which means it should embrace methods that are fair, timely, and cost-efficient. This includes a system that is affordable (both to the litigants and to society); non-adversarial and flexible; protects and preserves rather than damages or strains family relationships; empowers parties to make their own decisions; provides transparency and sheds light on problematic practices, patterns and decisions made by individual courts, attorneys, and governments; and facilitates the process chosen by the parties.

WE BELIEVE that a child should spend as much time as possible with each parent and that a court should endorse parenting plans and time-sharing schedules that embrace the best interests of the child after considering all relevant factors. Public health data and current scientific thinking should be incorporated into parenting plans and child support stipulations. Moreover, a court should adopt and implement policies that require parenting plans to identify the federal and state laws that govern parenting plans and child support stipulations, including those laws that target child support services and schools. A court’s policies should provide clear instructions and guidance for parents who seek or require a reevaluation of child support; and time-sharing schedules should include the criminal law pertaining to interference with custody, 787.03, Florida Statutes, and provide instructions to law enforcement to impose the provisions of the time-sharing plans.

WE BELIEVE that parents have the right to raise their child according to their personal, cultural, and religious values; and the child has the right to receive love from both parents. We believe that family courts are often manipulated by one parent’s efforts to deny these rights to the other parent and child, motivated by revenge, and with the goal of invalidating the court’s authority in deciding post-divorce custody by creating a pathology in the child.

WE BELIEVE that ‘parental alienation’ is an all-too-frequent result of divorce and/or child custody disputes, that it is tantamount to child abuse and domestic violence, and that it adversely affects the welfare of the child and the family as a whole. The term is commonly used in family courts to represent a brutal form of emotional and psychological abuse of one spouse-and-parent by the other, using the child as the weapon. The US Department of Justice defines ‘parental alienation’ as domestic violence against the other parent and as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.”

WE BELIEVE that all court professionals should be educated about the triggers and effects of emotional and psychological trauma on the family, and actions that exacerbate them should not be tolerated. Professionals should have expertise in and a commitment to all matters involving the child and family, including, but not limited to, child development, psychology, and mediation — and they should have an awareness and understanding that any parent or child who has faced a traumatic event (including coming from a broken family, suffering ‘parental alienation’, not prevailing in family court, and/or financial distress) might develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic grief. We believe  that the child and family in litigation are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and each of them may develop depression and anxiety that can restrict major life activities that are relevant to a parent in a family dispute.

WE UNDERSTAND the child and family often have invisible scars and bruises because of child custody disputes and/or divorce, and we believe that making one parent less important to raising the child is harmful to both the child and the parents. The family law system should condemn the use of expressions that connote preconceptions, such as “noncustodial parent”, “secondary parent”, and “registering parent”, in favor of “co-parent” and “the away parent.”

WE BELIEVE that all courts should provide public information through the Internet and law libraries, and that court administrations, as part of its daily practices and responsibilities, should provide procedural assistance and guidance to pro se litigants. There should be a clear distinction drawn between “legal information” (which among other things, includes the law itself, court procedures, forms, filing requirements and deadlines) and “legal advice” (which involves the application and interpretation of law) without the need for a pro se litigant to consult a lawyer.

WE BELIEVE that court proceedings should be required to be open and accessible to the public and media, and that the court should be required to audio record each family dispute hearing and to make copies available upon request in a contemporary medium (not CD-ROM) and without cost to either party.

WE BELIEVE that willful abandonment or desertion of a family should be grounds for a fault divorce and factor strongly into considerations of child custody, alimony, and child support, and that a parent should be penalized for making false allegations of domestic violence, sexual misconduct with a child, and for perjuring themselves in sworn testimony.

WE BELIEVE that there should be disciplinary actions, fines and/or criminal penalties for court professionals, guardians ad litem, social investigators, parenting coordinators, state-operated child protection services and child support services who wrongfully restrict or block access to information, or for failing to comply with the law, and that such professionals should be compelled to respond and defend themselves in family court against credible charges that they have caused emotional or economic harm to the child and/or parents.

WE UNDERSTAND that, in family court proceedings, each and any member of the family might experience feelings of emotional abuse and financial constraints, and we believe that the court should take whatever steps it can to resolve disputes without causing the family additional emotional harm or expense.

WE RESOLVE

-to work towards an intelligent, sustainable, dynamic, and socially equitable future for the system of family law and for the families and children within that system;
-to seek to settle disputes without causing emotional harm, financial distress, or unjustified separation of a child and parent;
-to engage in an open, transparent, and participatory dialogue with legislators, officers of the court, government officials, community groups, businesses, academic institutions, and other key partners, and, in so doing, endorse utilization of the best practices for the operation of family courts using the best available knowledge of family systems, mental health, and behavioral sciences;
-to call to action family law professionals, courts, and governments to collaborate with others to implement the guiding principles stated herein; and,
-to question any policy, practice, or court order that is in conflict with the principles stated herein and to actively and publicly express concern with, if not disapproval of, any actions that advocate, call for, encourage or result in the reduction of a parent’s equal rights as regards to their child without demonstrating that due process has been followed, and such action is reasonable, necessary, and in the best interests of the child.