Why do Judges allow SAFE programs to exist?

Question

Programs like Safe run by a non-profit agencies supposedly to provide supervised visits for Non-Custodial Parents. Most Judges have never ever visited yet this atrocity is assigned to people on a daily basis. Most of the time, this is ordered based on one parent's lies and deceit. If anyone had to deal with it, please contact me.

Wow, the reaction from cayenne was interesting. I should ask another question.. Why do some women get so ugly when someone asks a simple question.. I see that she is classified as a top contributor with thousands of answers that has no substance

This is still a free country where opinions are allowed.

A man has to fear from his ex more than the other way around. Some women hide behind the facade of abuse to hide their actions. Get off it. This is a discourse and telling me to that it is too bad if I don't like it is not very productive.

You are assuming incorrectly on it being personal. It is a survey I It is amazing that people read so much into a question.

The survey of judges, lawyers, and participants show a varied reaction.

The program was started for the reasons you cite, but it is run by mostly women who may or may not have endured actual abuse. They have no experience or education to run such a volatile program. As far as my ideas go:
- get trained social workers to run programs like these rather than very angry and tainted workers
- there are other programs run by other agencies, churches/religious entities, attorneys and trained social workers. which are more apt to do good then be punitive
- It is a money making scheme hiding under the guise of non-profit and there is no accountability
- It does not take anything to manage or work at this program but a desire to punish men AND woman who are in dire circumstances.
- Most cases no abuse was alleged or found.

Untrue that Judges ONLY have to work with cases where actual harm is present and you can only sue when actual harm was done.

Anyone can sue for any reason. It does not have to be true or actual. All you have to do is file and try to prove your point.

I am surprised so much misinformation is present in this venue

Answer 1

There are very precise rules for when courts are supposed to order supervised visitation. While you allege that the order is based on one parent's lies, it is the role of the judge to determine who is telling the truth. Since judges are humans, they might get it wrong, but any court judgment or order is based on the assumption that it is supported by the facts. If you have a better mechanism for determining the truth, I am all for hearing it but it is impossible to discuss SAFE programs or any other program under the assumption that court orders are erroneous.

The law on supervised visitation assumes that there are cases in which there is domestic violence or a substantial and real potential for child abuse. Under those circumstances, procedures are put in place to protect the child and the parents from such abuse occurring. One of the systems that exists is the use of non-profit "SAFE" programs to have an independent person supervise the exchange of custody or or supervise the visitation.

If the SAFE program used by your court engages in improper behavior in your case, you should make note of it and have your attorney request a modification to a different program. My hunch, however, says that it is not that the program is doing something wrong but that you do not like the restrictions ordered in your case and think they should not have been ordered.

Answer 2

"Programs like Safe run by a non-profit agencies" --- Judges cannot simple shut down a non-profit agencies because some people don't like it.

First of all, Judges can only respond to a lawsuit initiated by a plaintiff with an actual harm. That's part of the "cases and controversies" requirements in the US constitution (and similar state requirements for state courts). So, a judge cannot simply decide to make up a ruling unless there is a case.

Second, if the non-profit agency that's running the program isn't violating the law, then there is nothing the judge can do even if a case is brought to the court. The judge can only interpret and apply the law. If nobody is breaking the law, end of story.

Third, you may have a valid point that judges assign people to programs they know nothing about. But that statement is such a huge generalization that it's impossible to apply nationally.

People lie in court. It's illegal but it happens anyway. The judge can only do the best they can with the evidence presented and with the resources available. If you want to start up an alternative, go right ahead. If you are involved in a case and can prove the other side is lying, go right ahead. If you want to challenge an assignment that you were given, you can do that.

Other than that, judge's can't just shut something down because you don't like it.

Answer 3

Quite frankly, because it is a very good idea. Many women who are divorced fear for their physical safety. By using a SAFE program, the husband is precluded the opportunity to abduct the child, follow the wife home, etc. If you don't like it, too bad.