I love Utah politics

[USUC]

Looks like Brad Wilson will be throwing his hat into the ring for Romney's seat.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50733064...ble-senate-run

[MartyFunkhouser]

Please contact your representatives and request that they do not support HB0272. It is bad law and will create substantial problems in custody litigation.

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0272.html

[Copelius]

I have been out of the family law game for almost 5 years, and reading through that was somewhat triggering of what got me out of it. I concur with Marty. This should not make the code book.

[Pelado]

Please contact your representatives and request that they do not support HB0272. It is bad law and will create substantial problems in custody litigation.

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0272.html

I have been out of the family law game for almost 5 years, and reading through that was somewhat triggering of what got me out of it. I concur with Marty. This should not make the code book.

I read through some of that but I'm not sure what the real-world effects would be. What about the proposed changes do you consider problematic?

[MartyFunkhouser]

I read through some of that but I'm not sure what the real-world effects would be. What about the proposed changes do you consider problematic?

It is going to make a claim of DV/abuse the norm in every single contested child custody case. Because, if you make that allegation, it puts in motion a constraint on the court of what it can consider.

- It limits what evidence the judge can hear in cases where DV is alleged. Limits the court to only hear experts work with victims of domestic violence of abused. The problem with this is this is often not forensically trained experts. There is a big difference between a treating expert and a forensic expert. A forensic expert is going to have the training to receive multiple sources of data to get to the bottom what happened. It basically puts the accusing parent on a better position than the parent being accused.

- It limits what type of reunification treatment can occur in cases. Resist-refuse dynamics with parent/child can stem from multiple sources. Sometimes, it is from abuse. Sometimes, it is from parental behaviors influencing the children to reject a parent. The law basically assumes it is all abuse and that is what has to be the focus of reunification therapy.

- If supervision if ordered, the preference is for someone trained in DV/abuse. This is going to really limit the availability of supervisors.

Those a few of my thoughts. These aren't from me, but other concerns that have been circulating about it:

• IS BASED ON FLAWED RESEARCH THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED OR VALID AND CONTAINS FATAL FLAWS
• PREVENTS INTERVENTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE AND DESTRUCTIVE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
• DISCRIMINATES AND DENIES INTERVENTION FOR FAMILIES EXPERIENCING PARENT CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS
• MANDATES TRAINING FOR COURT PROFESSIONALS THAT IS FAULTY AND HAS A VERY NARROW AND SKEWED SCOPE
• LIMITS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT IS NEEDED IN COURT
• LIMITS THE EVIDENCE THE COURT CAN HEAR
• LIMITS EXPERT TESTIMONY TO A NARROW SCOPE OF DV EXPERTS AND DENIES FORENSIC TESTIMONY OR THOSE TRAINED IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY SYSTEMS
• HAS A HIDDEN AGENDA PROMOTING GENDER BIAS
• DENIES FULL ASSESSMENTS FOR DECISION MAKING AND RULINGS IN FAMILY LAW CASES
• PREVENTS EVIDENCED BASED THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS: REUNIFICATION IS FAMILY SYSTEMS WHICH IS EVIDENCED BASED
• As a result of this law:
• THE USE OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE TO BLOCK ACCESS IN PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIPS WILL INCREASE
• FAMILIES EXPERIENCING PARENT CHILD ACCESS PROBLEMS WON'T HAVE RESOURCES
• ACRIMONY WILL INCREASE IN FAMILY COURT

[LVAllen]

It is going to make a claim of DV/abuse the norm in every single contested child custody case. Because, if you make that allegation, it puts in motion a constraint on the court of what it can consider.

- It limits what evidence the judge can hear in cases where DV is alleged. Limits the court to only hear experts work with victims of domestic violence of abused. The problem with this is this is often not forensically trained experts. There is a big difference between a treating expert and a forensic expert. A forensic expert is going to have the training to receive multiple sources of data to get to the bottom what happened. It basically puts the accusing parent on a better position than the parent being accused.

- It limits what type of reunification treatment can occur in cases. Resist-refuse dynamics with parent/child can stem from multiple sources. Sometimes, it is from abuse. Sometimes, it is from parental behaviors influencing the children to reject a parent. The law basically assumes it is all abuse and that is what has to be the focus of reunification therapy.

- If supervision if ordered, the preference is for someone trained in DV/abuse. This is going to really limit the availability of supervisors.

Those a few of my thoughts. These aren't from me, but other concerns that have been circulating about it:

• IS BASED ON FLAWED RESEARCH THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED OR VALID AND CONTAINS FATAL FLAWS
• PREVENTS INTERVENTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE AND DESTRUCTIVE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
• DISCRIMINATES AND DENIES INTERVENTION FOR FAMILIES EXPERIENCING PARENT CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS
• MANDATES TRAINING FOR COURT PROFESSIONALS THAT IS FAULTY AND HAS A VERY NARROW AND SKEWED SCOPE
• LIMITS EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT IS NEEDED IN COURT
• LIMITS THE EVIDENCE THE COURT CAN HEAR
• LIMITS EXPERT TESTIMONY TO A NARROW SCOPE OF DV EXPERTS AND DENIES FORENSIC TESTIMONY OR THOSE TRAINED IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY SYSTEMS
• HAS A HIDDEN AGENDA PROMOTING GENDER BIAS
• DENIES FULL ASSESSMENTS FOR DECISION MAKING AND RULINGS IN FAMILY LAW CASES
• PREVENTS EVIDENCED BASED THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS: REUNIFICATION IS FAMILY SYSTEMS WHICH IS EVIDENCED BASED
• As a result of this law:
• THE USE OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE TO BLOCK ACCESS IN PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIPS WILL INCREASE
• FAMILIES EXPERIENCING PARENT CHILD ACCESS PROBLEMS WON'T HAVE RESOURCES
• ACRIMONY WILL INCREASE IN FAMILY COURT

Also, laws named after dead children are always bad laws. There are no exceptions to this rule.

[Copelius]

I read through some of that but I'm not sure what the real-world effects would be. What about the proposed changes do you consider problematic?

Like I said, I've been out of the game, but my initial thoughts were concern for greater use of exagerated or completely false DV claims than already exist, as well as messing with the rules of evidence, which hampers the court's ability to find facts.

Similar to the non-scientific determination that .05, or even .08 BAC impairs someone's driving capability enough to matter. But once the legislature accepted it as such, the courts' hands are tied. I know that is not a popular opinion, but in my criminal practice, both defense and prosecution, I never saw a BAC in which actual impairment was demonstrated or alleged lower than .10. But the defendant is not allowed to argue that because of the alternating theories of impariment as well as BAC. When defense attorneys got the courts in AK to do a Daubert hearing on the BAC machine the state used, NHTSA got the legislature to pass a bill that a measurement by the machine was accurate. I am sure that has happened in other states as well.

I kinda peeled off there because of the experience I had and I fear that the good intentions to protect kids from abuse will result in the same draconian treatment given to accused abusers as is given to drunk drivers. Not to say that I am in favor of drunk driving, but lets make it a truly ascertainable standard or make it not a drop.

To add to LVAllen's rule, laws made on behalf of dead children, looking at you MADD, are generally bad laws. Here some exceptions may apply.

[MartyFunkhouser]

If you want to dig more into this and why this is a problem, there is good info here.

https://www.kaydenslaw.info/

it is problem inevitable though that it will be passed. It wraps itself in a noble claim of "protecting children from abuse," and Biden was a dumbass and signed it into federal law as part of VAWA. It should have been an easy veto.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There is a MAGA nutjob on the state school board named Natalie Cline. She recently posted a pic of a Utah girls HS basketball player implying that she was trans. She is not. The poor girl was then subjected to harassment and bullying. Cline took down the post and issued one of the worst apologies I have ever seen.

Embedded Tweet

Forceful condemnation from the governor. And pretty much everyone else.

Embedded Tweet

If this woman isn't fired by the school board, there is something seriously wrong. Hard to imagine a worse thing to do for someone in a position like that.

[MartyFunkhouser]

There is a MAGA nutjob on the state school board named Natalie Cline. She recently posted a pic of a Utah girls HS basketball player implying that she was trans. She is not. The poor girl was then subjected to harassment and bullying. Cline took down the post and issued one of the worst apologies I have ever seen.

Embedded Tweet

Forceful condemnation from the governor. And pretty much everyone else.

Embedded Tweet

If this woman isn't fired by the school board, there is something seriously wrong. Hard to imagine a worse thing to do for someone in a position like that.

Natalie Cline is entirely unfit for any public office.

I don't care where you fall on the transgender issues, Natalie Cline's actions are disqualifying for her to hold office. She attacked a child.

Her "apology" wasn't even just bad, it wasn't an apology. She just blamed everything on transgender people. Her "apology" was actually a double down on her actions. In her "apology" she supported a father that also bullied another biological girl by claiming she was transgender.

Natalie Cline has been horrible for a long time, but she has sunk to a new low. Didn't think it was possible.

[MartyFunkhouser]

By the way, here is the "apology" so people can read it for themselves. She prefaces every post on social media with [Constitutionally protected free speech]

[Constitutionally Protected Speech]

I previously shared a public advertisement for a school basketball game that was sent to me by multiple concerned parents, and it created a firestorm around one of the players pictured. Personal information as well as derogatory comments about the player were made by several commenters. To protect the player, I have removed the post. My deepest apologies for the negative attention my post drew to innocent students and their families.

My original post (now deleted) never claimed the student was a boy. For those who are still claiming the student is a boy, please know that several people I know and trust have reached out to me who personally know this girl and have vouched that she is in fact a biological girl and always has been since birth. She does have a larger build, like her parents. We live in strange times when it is normal to pause and wonder if people are what they say they are because of the push to normalize transgenderism in our society. But that is definitely not the case with this student, and I apologize again that the conversation around the post turned personal, that was never the intention, and again, I removed the post as soon as I realized what had transpired.

Recently, a father approached me about being trespassed by a school because he raised concerns about the gender of a player on the opposing team at his daugher's game. This father was acting in good faith to protect his daughter, but he was treated like a criminal for even raising the question. This is not acceptable, either. The ground is shifting with so many exceptions being made to the rules that it's hard to know what the rules are any more, which leads to misunderstanding and confusion on all sides of what used to be a black and white issue.

We are all trying to preserve women's sports and their privacy spaces. In doing so, we most certainly recognize that there is great variety within females when it comes to physical characteristics, and of course, we are accepting of these differences and want all girls to feel welcome in school sports. Sadly, our good faith efforts to be accepting of differences has, at times, been taken advantage of causing a loss of trust, which leads to suspicion about girls who are more buff than most. This is a sad consequence of the trans movement being foisted upon us, which puts us all in a difficult spot. Nobody wants to question if a kid is the gender they say they are. We want to protect children, not hurt them. We want to trust while also protecting the truth.

In a world that sometimes uses children as human shields to push radical agendas, it has become increasingly difficult to trust and to know how to protect children without hurting children when children are the targets and victims in so much of the chaos and confusion swirling around us.

Again, my deepest apologies to the family and this young lady.

[smokymountainrain]

i just looked Natalie Cline up, she legit looks like a dude in some of her photos, so i guess she should know. yikes. she nasty

[Jeff Lebowski]

Natalie Cline is entirely unfit for any public office.

I don't care where you fall on the transgender issues, Natalie Cline's actions are disqualifying for her to hold office. She attacked a child.

Her "apology" wasn't even just bad, it wasn't an apology. She just blamed everything on transgender people. Her "apology" was actually a double down on her actions. In her "apology" she supported a father that also bullied another biological girl by claiming she was transgender.

Natalie Cline has been horrible for a long time, but she has sunk to a new low. Didn't think it was possible.

Exactly. I got more angry with her after reading that ridiculous "apology". What a horrible human being.

[Northwestcoug]

By the way, here is the "apology" so people can read it for themselves. She prefaces every post on social media with [Constitutionally protected free speech]

That reads like 'I'm sorry I posted that, but let me explain to you why it's reasonable that I did'.

She'll be forced to resign, right? Right?

[Donuthole]

Has anyone ever seen Natalie Cline and Caitlyn Jenner in the same room? Not sayin. Just sayin.
IMG_5476.jpeg