"Dan Sullivan" <dsulldan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:52a6db5f-8a20-438a-91fc-89ef77d400f3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 16, 11:59 am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> October 21, 2008 CT Supreme Court Admits Parenting Cl***** Don't Help
> Children
>
> Parents don't have to use anything in the cl*****.
>
> Staff Writer Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT
>
> Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the state can impose
> parenting cl***** in cases of divorce without probable cause or
> evidence that the child is impacted in anyway.
But if one thing they learn in the cl***** helps resolve an issue that
would have involved both of their attorneys, it'll be the best $125
they ever spent.
Figure this, if both parents raise an issue with their attnies and
both attnies bill them for 2 hours each, the total cost to the family
is close to $1,000 when the smoke clears..
> The Court also had to
> admit in the same breath after parents waste their time and money for
> paying and attending parenting cl***** the parents can toss everything
> in the garbage that was forced down their throats.
How was anything "forced down their throats?"
***
It wasn't. They were given a choice, and they made the one that was the
best given the cir***stances. Just like every other parent in the world.
> Parents DO NOT
> have to use any of the information. Parents can walk out of the class
> and never use any of the information. The State of Connecticut or the
> courts can not force parents to use ANY information that is given
> them. Parents who are forced to attend cl***** who have already
> decided to never to use any of it is a waste of time and money.
How can someone decide not to use anything from the parenting class
when they've never attended it?
> Parenting cl***** [ have NEVER helped ] a child and there is no
> evidence to show [ otherwise ].
Never?
I find that difficult to believe.
***
And most of us know better. gregg is posturing for his own sake, the fact
that HE was required to attend such cl***** does not make him an expert,
obviously, since his S.O.'s daughter still has not been reunited with her
mother.
> These cl***** are based on educated
> guess at best.
Conflict resolution isn't a guessing game.
> Every child is different and the parent knows the
> child and is fully capable of educating their own children.
All parents are capable of educating their children?
That's why no parent should have to attend the parenting class?
***
Most parents are totally incapable of educating their own children without
significant study on their own part and massive sup****t from an outside
interest. A remarkably ignorant observation you have made there gregg.
> Stop
> wasting parents time and money. Judges already have the authority to
> order parenting cl***** or anger management cl***** in a case by case
> basis and has judicial review. In divorce cases, parenting cl*****
> are part of an automatic court order the minute you file for divorce
> with NO judicial review. The intent of the cl***** were to help
> children through an alleged difficult time.
Children and parents.
> This state statute
> forcing parenting cl***** is not sup****ted that parents and children
> need or want help. Nor did the state show that parents are incapable
> of handling divorce or any other stressful time in the family like a
> death of a parent. The state presumes that ALL parents are unfit and
> incompetent contrary to Troxel v. Granville.
The state presumes that both that parents and children in a family
going thru a divorce would benefit in some way by taking a parenting
course.
Actually it probably costs the attorneys far more (in fees) than it
costs the parents.
> In the U.S. Supreme Court
> opinion in Troxel v. Granville, parents are presumed to be fit,
> competent and fully capable of taking care of their children. The
> state must show the requisite proof of parental unfitness in order for
> states or judges to have jurisdiction.
Don't the Judge's have jurisdiction because the parents filed for a
divorce?
***
Sure the judge does, because the parents themselves have asked the courts
to
intervene by initiating a divorce action. Judges would be remiss in their
duties if they failed to consider the impact to the family as a whole and
all of its parts individually. Divorce is a legal action, not a moral
one.
Once more gregg is putting his ignorance on display for all to see. I
have
stopped being shocked by this, seems its his personal quirk to have others
note just how illiterate he actually is.
Ron
|
