Did You Know?

The latest statistics reveal  80% of  child pornography purchasers are active child molesters.

Network monitoring conducted by law enforcement officials shows that 1 in 5 children are contacted for sex while online.

70% of convicted sex offenders use the Internet.

Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined. (MADD)

Over 90% of the child sexual abuse incidents are committed by someone known by the child or his/her family.

Over 22 million individuals have a substance dependence or abuse problem in the US.

To implement legislation that protects children from the harmful effects of being in the unsupervised care of an addict by: (1) educating the public, legislators, and the judiciary about addiction; (2) requiring that courts receive annual education about addiction and its impact on children under an addict's care; (3) requiring that courts hear evidence of addiction, regardless of the potential "prejudice" to the litigant (see below); and (4) requiring that where the court finds such evidence credible, the court may order only supervised visitation.

Why this legislation? Because in most jurisdictions it is in a court's discretion whether or not to hear evidence that may prejudice a litigant. Erring on the side of caution, most courts refuse to hear such evidence. The result is that courts seldom have a full and accurate picture of a potential custodian, and often award custody of children to addicts. Since no new evidence can be introduced on appeal, if evidence of addiction is not heard at trial,

t will never be heard until the child is harmed. If introduced at trial, this preserves the issue for appeal.

The rule of evidence regarding prejudicial information was designed to protect a litigant in a criminal trial, which is usually heard by a jury and open to the public. Custody cases are civil trials, not heard by juries, ad not usually open to the public Therefore, the potential harm to the litigant is not substantial, and, moreover, judges should be astute enough to adjudge the credibility of evidence--if they are not--why are they on the bench? Moreover, how can they possibly make rulings in the best interest of the child where they do not have all the relevant information?

That’s why this website was created; to garner support for the proposed legislation; to encourage, support, and inspire similar legislation in other jurisdictions; and to be a resource for the public--litigants, attorneys, judges, psychologists, legislators, addicts, and other interested individuals.