May 5, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS CONFERENCE May 6th, 2011 at 12 Noon
Location:
US Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Sidewalk in front of the US Supreme Court
HISTORIC US SUPREME COURT CASE
Child Advocates and Legal Scholars are anxiously awaiting the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 6, 2011 at 12 noon at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in the Sacks v. Sacks case.
This truly will be an Historic Day at the US Supreme Court, for America’s children and their “Protective Parents”, as this landmark case is being hand delivered by a Florida Mother and exposes a national crisis all over the US.
The Sacks v. Sacks case is the perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to thoroughly explore and address the issue of Battered Mothers and child abuse, and their documented evidence of “protective parents” losing custody and the failure of family courts and Child Protective Services to thoroughly investigate and handle Domestic Violence, child sexual/and or child physical abuse cases properly, therefore resulting in a verdict, contrary to the “bests interests of the child(ren)”.
Kathleen Russell, from the Center for Judicial Excellence, in the California Progress Report, on 10/19/09 “When Family Courts Get It Wrong”, says “When a parent harms his or her own child, family courts are supposed to step in and safeguard the victim. Can you imagine what a tragedy it would be if courts awarded custody to the wrong parent Actually according to one conservative estimate, more than 58, 000 children a year are court ordered by family courts into unsupervised visitation contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following a divorce in the U.S. The fact that this type of scandal is taking place in the American justice system defies the imagination. Not since the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the US seen this type of institutional harm inflicted on innocent children.” (www.centerforjudicalexcelllence.org)
The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee are addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011, “and explore what can happen to a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.
The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the article.(www.now.org) Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter.
On April 21, 2011, in the BMCCVI Digest Number 2011, reports that Eileen King representing Justice for Children participated in the Office of Violence Against Women Roundtable Discussion that took place at George Washington University Law School. The Roundtable was organized by Rita Smith, the Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Prof. Joan Meier, Director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DVLEAP) at GWU Law School. OVW will post a report about the Roundtable on their website in the near future. (www.justiceforchildren.org) and (www.dvleap.org)
As noted by Barry Goldstein, Esq. The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) is part of the US Justice Department that provides grants for programs to reduce and prevent domestic violence. They recently sponsored a forum for their staff and other professionals in various parts of the government to learn about the crisis in the custody court system.
“It was a discussion based upon current scientific research and actual experiences that courts are routinely making catastrophic mistakes in failing to protect children and domestic violence survivors. Linda Marie Sacks, a Florida Mother, truly the “All American Mom”, has only seen her children at the Family Tree House Visitation Center for 82 hours in the last 4 years and 2 months, is challenging the “Best Interests of The Children” Statute 61.13, as Domestic Violence, child sexual and physical abuse must be considered in a judge’s decision determining the “Best Interests of the Children”. In the Pro se Cert Petition, Sacks raises the constitutional implications of a fit parent to the care, custody, of her children, and without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, established by the US Supreme Court ruling in Santosky v. Kramer, U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982).
Her daughters said in April 2007, “Mommy fight for us and do something every day to get us back and don’t ever stop”. Their Mother not only kept her promise to them, but now is a national spokesperson on the child custody crisis, and is speaking up for her children, and all of America’s children affected by the failure of our justice system to protect our most innocent children from sexual and physical abuse. She is a formidable legal opponent, as she has been self taught, going to “Internet Law School” to continue her legal challenge after spending $140,000 to undo an unjust custody decision. The Fifth District Court of Appeals REVERSED and REMANDED the issue of child custody back to the lower court for a violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights to due process, in 08/08. This rare reversal provided no relief as the lower court of Judge Shawn L. Briese refused to abide by the Appeals court and refused to protect the children and said one child lied about being sexually abused.
In an article by John Weiss, from Post-Bulletin, Rochester, MN , “Do children lie about sexual abuse? Not Usually.” Children do lie, but seldom about being abused. “All human beings can and do lie, but it’s hard for kids to do it about sex”, said Victor Vieth, the director of the national Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University. “They can’t lie about something they have no knowledge of” he said, and children don’t learn about oral sex from Sesame Street.
Dr. Deborah Day of Psychological Affiliates, the court ordered custody evaluator said the minor child at 8 years old had pediatric bipolar and that negates any child sexual abuse, and then thwarted the DCF investigation. The court record clearly showed that the child DID NOT have bipolar, but the trial court still refused to protect the children, which is typical from cases all over the US.