Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal

[TorisMom003]

Would this bill have required for Dina to have disclosed all info about the guy she was dating, and that was staying with her at the time, when Max had his accident? I have to agree with K Z about Dina's intentions with this bill, especially when she herself was a problem to Jonah's first wife.

 

[K_Z]

Would this bill have required for Dina to have disclosed all info about the guy she was dating, and that was staying with her at the time, when Max had his accident? I have to agree with K Z about Dina's intentions with this bill, especially when she herself was a problem to Jonah's first wife.

BBM

This is what was written in the Phoenix Mag interview:

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/

Essentially, the bill is a salve for split-custody angst; following a divorce or breakup, it would create a mechanism for concerned parents to run a background check on any adult who assumes a caregiving or co-living arrangement with their children – for instance, your ex-wife’s new boyfriend.

Several months prior to her son’s death, Shacknai – who holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology – ran a background check on Zahau, uncovering a Phoenix shoplifting arrest. Because Zahau was arrested under a different surname, it was a time-consuming and expensive ordeal, “a hole in the system” that could be fixed with a low-hassle rider in divorce court parenting agreements, according to Maxie’s H.O.U.S.E. spokesman Michael Chetworth. Each parent would simply swear to provide the name of any future live-in companion, and one piece of identification, to the other parent.

If the background check turned up a criminal record, the spouse could take the information to the court and lobby to have the parenting agreement amended. “It depends on what comes up. If it’s a DUI, maybe that person can’t drive the kids anymore,” Chetworth says. “If it’s a sex conviction in Kentucky, you lose custody. Currently, you have no specific right to acquire this information.”

Shacknai and her Maxie’s H.O.U.S.E. associates say they’re sensitive to privacy issues. The law will include a provision against stalking, they say. And it will be purely elective – at least for the parents. “We don’t want it to be mandatory, but we’d like it to be mandatory to have the option,” Chetworth says. “It would be something that your lawyer would be obligated to tell you about [during the divorce]. A box you check off.”

Bold emphasis by me. This is the "voluntary" portion of the proposal. IMO, this is currently available to every single divorcing parent in Arizona, as well as the other 49 states. IMO, legislators don't need to waste their time re-confirming what is already available and legal, nor mandating that attorneys tell their divorcing clients that they have the option to request voluntary consent for a background check from their ex-spouse's new love interest.

However, to answer your question, according to this information, Jonah AND Kimberley would have been entitled to background checks on both Dina and the BF that was staying with her in Coronado. However, Dina's ideas state that only "one" form of ID would be asked for. So that, in no way, covers every single name or alias that someone has gone by in the past. That is where the "stalking" issues begin, IMO.

There are so many monumental problems with this "idea" for legislation, IMO. I cannot even begin to see how bipartisan support would begin. And with all of Dina's multitude of issues, from the wrongful death suit, to everything ELSE, I cannot imagine a bunch of legislators will glom onto this and hitch their wagons together. It's a tremendously bad solution in search of a problem, IMO-- the problem being bitter ex-spouses who co-parent.

What Dina actually did with her "expensive and difficult" stalking of Rebecca was potentially illegal under stalking laws already in place in AZ and CA state law, IMO.

And, BTW, Dina does not hold a PhD in Psychology. That is an error. She holds a PsyD from Argosy. A completely different degree. She remains unlicensed in AZ according to state professional practice database.

 

[time]

Thanks for all the info and thoughts everyone.

This is minor in relation to other problems with the 'bill' but the "live-in" part seems sort of arbitrary (and where have we heard THAT word before)... so a BF/GF/Partner that keeps their house but is at your house 80% of the time doesn't need to go through the checking part, eh?

I'm pretty sure Dina was requesting such (and more?) from Rebecca before she started living with Jonah. Then she falsely claims Rebecca hadn't used that name in the US. As I think I said, there are some situations where this just aids a parent who is also a stalker.

 

[K_Z]

Thanks for all the info and thoughts everyone.

This is minor in relation to other problems with the 'bill' but the "live-in" part seems sort of arbitrary (and where have we heard THAT word before)... so a BF/GF/Partner that keeps their house but is at your house 80% of the time doesn't need to go through the checking part, eh?

I'm pretty sure Dina was requesting such (and more?) from Rebecca before she started living with Jonah. Then she falsely claims Rebecca hadn't used that name in the US. As I think I said, there are some situations where this just aids a parent who is also a stalker.

I agree, time. If this idea were to make it as far as a committee hearing (and I think that is a VERY long shot, indeed, with Senator Barto up for re-election in 2014), I think the issues of these provisions will be hotly debated, and ultimately kill the potential bill. This "law" would be used far more often, IMO, as a weapon from one spouse against another, and an "excuse" to drag their former partner into family court, and intimidate, stigmatize, and stalk their new friends.

It is also very troubling for children who are older than toddlers, and are put smack in the middle, as Maxie was. Will this "law" further traumatize children of "blended families" by bitter ex-spouses who may insist that they shun, dislike, and not bond with or respect the new partner? Will this new "law" create a whole lot of discord among co-parents of "blended families"?? These are questions worthy of VERY public debate.

For example, what is the "appropriate" amount of time 2 people have to know one another before they are officially a BF/ GF/ or Partner, and the bitter ex-spouse can demand the "voluntary background check and one form of ID"? What if the targeted person isn't a BF/ GF/ partner, but just hangs around a lot? What about the BFs/ GFs of teens in the home? Are they fair game for background checks?

What if the new love interest decides they don't want to cooperate? Does this "law" mandate that the spouse turn over privileged identity data to the bitter ex-spouse anyway? Will the spouse who REFUSES to agree to provide the identity info be penalized in family court?? Dina and Maxie's House are calling for voluntary cooperation. If the bitter ex-spouse goes ahead and stalks the new partner anyway, performing INVOLUNTARY, UNCONSENTED "background checks", or uses a private investigator, can they then be charged with stalking? Where is the line? Where are the limits?

What if the bitter ex-spouse requesting the "voluntary, consented background check" takes it too far, and sleuths stuff they shouldn't about the new partner, now that they have their personal information? Is that stalking? Parking tickets? Late payments on bills?

What if the targeted person for the background check denies they are in a relationship with the co-parent? What if the targeted person-- heavens! is committing adultery?? What if they are using an alias while they commit adultery?

Which agency will perform the "background" check? Local police? State? Private investigators hired by the bitter ex-spouse? If a state agency is involved, will they just report "pass or fail" to the bitter ex-spouse, or will they provide every parking ticket? How many years will they go back? How often will bitter ex-spouses be able to demand subsequent background checks? Once a year? Once every 3 years?

What about all of the rights to privacy of the new partner?

The ramifications of this proposed legislation are enormous. It cannot simply be boiled down to some little "check box", as was discussed in the Split Decision article. Bottom line, no state needs a new law to legitimize voluntary cooperation between divorcing co-parents.

IMO, what Dina REALLY was pushing for was the right to do INVOLUNTARY, unconsented private investigation (stalking) of any person the bitter ex-spouse decides they want to investigate.

 

[K_Z]

Gosh—I have a great idea! We already have a bunch of systems in place to do background checks on a whole lot of people in AZ and the rest of the country! We even do background checks on volunteers who work with children, right? Basically, there is only one practical solution to the dilemma of the personal information and privacy issue going to the bitter ex spouse. Because THAT will NEVER fly legislatively, or with the public, IMO. The bitter ex-spouse is the least objective person involved in the situation. We have to take the entire process away from any control or influence of the bitter ex spouse to even begin to appeal to the public or legislators.

The language of this proposal has to entirely take the bitter ex spouse completely out of the process, with the exception of requesting the background check. There is really no legal mechanism (thankfully, lol!) to compel one private citizen to provide their personal information to another private citizen. However, I think there IS a solution to this dilemma!

It’s very simple. All AZ has to do (ROFLMAO!) is write into law a provision that requires the new live in guest, or BF/ GF/ partner (or whomever the bitter ex spouse is targeting) to complete a Pre-Employment Background Check using one of the many AZ companies that do this kind of thing! See, that takes the bitter ex-spouse completely out of the link of privacy data! Now, we just have to decide who will pay for the pre-employment screening—should it be the bitter ex spouse requesting the pre-employment background check, the co-parent, or the new love interest? Hmmm…..

I imagine it could go something like this. The bitter ex spouse would request the background check, and the new love interest would happily comply, promptly (within a legally prescribed time period) providing their personal information to one of the approved businesses that do pre-employment screening. The bitter ex spouse would be notified as to whether the individual passes or fails, according to detailed criteria set by law. They would not be given any specific information, thus attending to some of the privacy issues. If the person fails, the bitter ex spouse can drag the new love interest or house guest into family court, and let the COURT determine if limits should be placed on the contact that person has with the child. A perfect solution, right? Now we just have to pass it into law, and force all the citizens to comply! Easy peasy!

I think, while they are at it, Dina and Maxie’s House should make sure an HIV test, immigration status, periodic random drug testing, DNA sample, fingerprints, and STD testing is part of the background checks for the new love interest or house guest, enumerated in the proposed bill. Just like pre-employment testing for certain fields! Maybe we can task the local police departments with this—keeping track of who is registered and licensed to date people with children from previous marriages. We could even legislate a voluntary provision so people could PRE-certify themselves as quality dates, thus saving time and hassle when they meet someone new! Maybe we could issue a wallet card for people who pass.

We should probably also require the person undergoing the background check to provide their car for inspection, too, and require them to have an alcohol detection ignition lock in place, too, just in case. Maybe a remote control kill switch installed, too. But ONLY for the new GF/ BF/ partner—because they are the biggest risk, statistically, to the safety of children in blended families. You can never be too safe, right?

This is gonna sail right thru the Arizona legislature in no time at all!

 

[Serpico]

If Dina had been given info on Rebecca's past what else would she found besides a shop-lifting arrest?

She'd have found that Becky didn't having a drinking problem & that she didn't do drugs. She'd have found that Becky had never committed a violent crime. She'd have found that Becky had never committed a crime against a child. She'd also have found that Becky had no record of anyone claiming she committed domestic abuse against a partner of family member (something Dina herself can't say).

Plus Rebecca would've been more responsible than DINA if Max's doctor recommended to set up an appointment with a Cardiologist over a month earlier......DINA never followed up.

 

[Serpico]

Gosh—I have a great idea! We already have a bunch of systems in place to do background checks on a whole lot of people in AZ and the rest of the country! We even do background checks on volunteers who work with children, right? Basically, there is only one practical solution to the dilemma of the personal information and privacy issue going to the bitter ex spouse. Because THAT will NEVER fly legislatively, or with the public, IMO. The bitter ex-spouse is the least objective person involved in the situation. We have to take the entire process away from any control or influence of the bitter ex spouse to even begin to appeal to the public or legislators.

The language of this proposal has to entirely take the bitter ex spouse completely out of the process, with the exception of requesting the background check. There is really no legal mechanism (thankfully, lol!) to compel one private citizen to provide their personal information to another private citizen. However, I think there IS a solution to this dilemma!

It’s very simple. All AZ has to do (ROFLMAO!) is write into law a provision that requires the new live in guest, or BF/ GF/ partner (or whomever the bitter ex spouse is targeting) to complete a Pre-Employment Background Check using one of the many AZ companies that do this kind of thing! See, that takes the bitter ex-spouse completely out of the link of privacy data! Now, we just have to decide who will pay for the pre-employment screening—should it be the bitter ex spouse requesting the pre-employment background check, the co-parent, or the new love interest? Hmmm…..

I imagine it could go something like this. The bitter ex spouse would request the background check, and the new love interest would happily comply, promptly (within a legally prescribed time period) providing their personal information to one of the approved businesses that do pre-employment screening. The bitter ex spouse would be notified as to whether the individual passes or fails, according to detailed criteria set by law. They would not be given any specific information, thus attending to some of the privacy issues. If the person fails, the bitter ex spouse can drag the new love interest or house guest into family court, and let the COURT determine if limits should be placed on the contact that person has with the child. A perfect solution, right? Now we just have to pass it into law, and force all the citizens to comply! Easy peasy!

I think, while they are at it, Dina and Maxie’s House should make sure an HIV test, immigration status, periodic random drug testing, DNA sample, fingerprints, and STD testing is part of the background checks for the new love interest or house guest, enumerated in the proposed bill. Just like pre-employment testing for certain fields! Maybe we can task the local police departments with this—keeping track of who is registered and licensed to date people with children from previous marriages. We could even legislate a voluntary provision so people could PRE-certify themselves as quality dates, thus saving time and hassle when they meet someone new! Maybe we could issue a wallet card for people who pass.

We should probably also require the person undergoing the background check to provide their car for inspection, too, and require them to have an alcohol detection ignition lock in place, too, just in case. Maybe a remote control kill switch installed, too. But ONLY for the new GF/ BF/ partner—because they are the biggest risk, statistically, to the safety of children in blended families. You can never be too safe, right?

This is gonna sail right thru the Arizona legislature in no time at all!

My gut feeling for this ill advised Bill.....DINA wants to continue to INFER that Rebecca was responsible for her son's death.

 

[justice be served]

Gosh—I have a great idea! We already have a bunch of systems in place to do background checks on a whole lot of people in AZ and the rest of the country!

Snipped

We should probably also require the person undergoing the background check to provide their car for inspection, too, and require them to have an alcohol detection ignition lock in place, too, just in case. Maybe a remote control kill switch installed, too. But ONLY for the new GF/ BF/ partner—because they are the biggest risk, statistically, to the safety of children in blended families. You can never be too safe, right?

This is gonna sail right thru the Arizona legislature in no time at all!

Oh my goodness! I think you've covered everything and then some! You have definitely pointed out the absurdity of it all and presented a reality check of the bill. Perhaps we should forward your comments on to the correct parties. LOL

 

[K_Z]

My gut feeling for this ill advised Bill.....DINA wants to continue to INFER that Rebecca was responsible for her son's death.

Exactly, Serpico! You get it.

Agreed, that this will not “brief well” to the Senator and her fellow legislators, and the public. At some point one of Senator Barto’s staffers will quietly inform her that the child Dina wants this proposed legislation named after, did NOT die as a result of any crime, nor was injured in any way because of the actions of the new GF of Dina’s ex-spouse. The child, Max, did not die because something in Rebecca’s past was not discovered. The child died in a horrible accidental fall.

Now the Senator has to choose—does the Arizona Senator support the findings of California law enforcement, or does she support the wild imagination of a constituent (Dina is in her district) who has some wealthy enablers on her nonprofit BOD? And it’s an election year, so the Senator has to decide carefully what to do with this situation. Criticizing the official findings of LE also doesn’t “brief well”, even if the LE is in another state.

You see, as awful as it is to bluntly say it, if Max HAD been a violent crime victim BECAUSE of something Dina discovered in her (stalking) “private investigation” of Rebecca, there would be a chance of persuading other legislators and the public that such a law was not only in the best interest of AZ children, but NECESSARY. If Max had been abducted and murdered by someone with an undiscovered history of, for example, substantial child abuse, there MIGHT be a compelling argument for Dina’s wild ideas about her feelings of entitlement to her ex-spouse’s choice of GF.

But exactly the opposite is true, and Dina's false narrative about Rebecca will not go unnoticed. Many people have said how wonderful Max and Rebecca were together. Dina has criticized Rebecca for, for example, providing healthy meals to Max, instead of junk food. (The HORROR!) The reality is that, as ktgirl has well pointed out, Dina’s background stalking of Rebecca did not turn up a single thing that would make ANY family court reluctant to allow her to be around Max. No alcohol or drug related offenses, no child abuse, no violence of any kind.

Rebecca would have passed most pre-employment background checks with a thorough explanation of what happened, proof of the records, and the completion of the diversion program she completed.

Yes, Dina discovered an old a shoplifting charge. Rebecca is not here to explain that—but she WAS ALIVE when Dina discovered it, and could have explained the situation THEN, in court or otherwise. Dina chose not to do anything more about it. Probably because she knew the courts would agree that a single, old shoplifting charge is not ENOUGH reason to restrict that person from being around the child of their partner. And yes, in every way Rebecca was a common law partner to Jonah.

Dina and Maxie’s House have done a few things to deal with these uncomfortable, but truthful issues, as they push for a bill to be authored to allow bitter ex-spouses to stalk new partners.

Dina has distanced her words from WHAT she found out about Rebecca’s shoplifting charge, to “HOW HARD AND EXPENSIVE” it was for Dina to “DO” the background check. That is a VERY important distinction. Listen for that to be the new sound bite/ meme for the reason for the proposed legislation. "It was so hard and so expensive. We have to make it easier". Talking points, IMO, will escalate and emphasize "make it easy for parents of divorce to find out these things. Make it easy, make it easy. All we need is a little check box, and we will all be in a happier place. It's so simple!"

Dina’s goal is to make it easier to do background checks on the ex-spouse’s choice of friends. What is actually discovered is entirely secondary to the goal of making it easy for the bitter ex wife to stalk and harass the new girlfriend.

Dina and Maxie’s House have also selected Michael Chetworth to be a spokesperson, because Dina Shacknai simply is too volatile and caustic to be an authentic representative. Dina is now named in a $10 million wrongful death lawsuit from the estate of the GF she accuses, without any record or evidence, of “murdering her only child”. Dina is widely felt to have a major part in Rebecca’s death, and Dina has publicly accused Rebecca, and A MINOR, of murdering Max—again, without any evidence except opinion/ imagination.

Dina and her puppet enablers on her BOD want desperately for Senator Barto and the public to believe Max was the victim of a preventable “crime”, but for the absence of this “Parental Disclosure” provision. It's essential that they play it that way, and distance themselves from truth. They intend to attempt to persuade the public and legislators that Max’s accidental fall from a mansion staircase, is EQUAL to the horror of stranger child abduction, sexual assault, and murder, because of this old shoplifting charge. Now THAT is a colossal leap of logic.

So, IMO, that won’t “brief well” to legislators and the public when the truth comes out for discussion. Senator Barto may actually introduce and sponsor Dina’s bitter ex-spouse bill because Dina is a constituent. She may introduce it out there for show, and let it die of benign neglect before it gets a hearing. That is how the game is played, particularly in an election year. Satisfy the vocal constituent by introducing, then let it die of benign neglect, because everyone knows it has no chance of passing both houses and the Governor.

If Senator Barto couldn’t persuade the AZ legislature that co-parents have to notify one another and work together when one of them plans to move, I think it is very unlikely she can persuade legislators that bitter ex-wives should be entitled to stalk the new love interests of their former spouse. That’s my opinion. Senator Barto may introduce Dina’s vendetta bill because Dina is a constituent and it’s an election cycle, but a potential bill will die quickly from neglect, IMO. A bill goes nowhere if the sponsor isn’t energetically mustering LOTS of bipartisan support for it. And there is not a shred of evidence that Senator Barto is energetically supporting this idea, nor any other legislators. JMO, MOO, and all that.

 

[*Lash*]

In my opinion, there is a question Dina and her BOD need to consider while drafting their proposal. What should the court do in the event the new GF/BF/partner takes it upon themselves to do a background check on the bitter ex and the report comes back showing the bitter ex recently had a DUI or an arrest for drug possession? If presented to the judge who is considering the welfare of the child, shouldn't the judge demand restrictions be put on the bitter ex or would the bio parents background be exempt from this bill? My point, a biological parent is just as likely to have an unfavorable background that should be considered first before one delves into the background of a new GF/BF/partner. Of course none of this really matters if the intentions of the bitter ex is simply that, bitter and vindictive. IMO.

 

[bourne]

In my opinion, there is a question Dina and her BOD need to consider while drafting their proposal. What should the court do in the event the new GF/BF/partner takes it upon themselves to do a background check on the bitter ex and the report comes back showing the bitter ex recently had a DUI or an arrest for drug possession? If presented to the judge who is considering the welfare of the child, shouldn't the judge demand restrictions be put on the bitter ex or would the bio parents background be exempt from this bill? My point, a biological parent is just as likely to have an unfavorable background that should be considered first before one delves into the background of a new GF/BF/partner. Of course none of this really matters if the intentions of the bitter ex is simply that, bitter and vindictive. IMO.

I like how you think! You're absolutely right. What would the courts do if the new gf/bf/partner finds out something criminal like domestic violence reports against the ex-spouse of the man/woman they are dating? Should the biological/adopted child then be taken away from, or restrictions be placed on the ex-spouse?

Certainly there would be more custodial NIGHTMARES resulting from this "stalker law". I can't imagine it would pass on any legislative floor. So I'm not even going to give this bill any further thought. I agree with KZ, it'll be introduced because Barto likely needs Dina's and other wealthy vindictive ex-wives' $support, but it'll be pushed aside and die without serious consideration from any legislator.

 

[K_Z]

Though Shacknai broadly characterizes Maxie’s H.O.U.S.E. as a “movement about creating a high priority for child safety,” its specific goals are embodied in Maxie’s Law, which Shacknai intends to present to Arizona lawmakers when the legislature reconvenes in January.

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/

BBM

Important to keep in mind that IF this bill is written and introduced, it will very likely go to the Health and Human Services Committee. I strongly disagree that anyone who is concerned about this potential bill should sit back and forget about it. I agree it will very likely never gain momentum to pass, but no one should assume it is dead on arrival. That isn't a good strategy, IMO.

It's no secret to Dina OR Maxie's House BOD's that Senator Barto is the Chair of the Senate HHS.

http://azleg.gov/CommitteeInfo.asp?Committee_ID=58

The Chair has a lot of influence and power over whether or not an introduced bill is actually scheduled for a hearing. The Chair determines the complete conduct of the hearing, who speaks, in what order, how long, etc. The chair has complete power over their committee process.

No one should who cares about privacy issues and stalking should assume this potential bill will be killed. Benign neglect of a bad bill is always nice, but it is essential for the groups and individuals who would oppose this potential bill to have a plan in place to respond to the potential bill, if and when it is introduced, IMO.

Because, IMO, nothing kills a bill faster than public discussion over whether or not it is the "right" course of action.

 

[K_Z]

Regarding Dina's wealthy BOD and campaign finance. Here is a record of Senator Barto's campaign finance records.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/58371/nancy-barto#.UgNBpEko4qQ

We have chosen to run a traditionally funded campaign without using taxpayer funding. Any size donation will help us reach our goal and is very much appreciated! We can accept donations of up to $424 per individual. No corporate checks accepted.

http://nancybarto.com/wordpress/?page_id=23

 

[bourne]

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/

BBM

Important to keep in mind that IF this bill is written and introduced, it will very likely go to the Health and Human Services Committee. I strongly disagree that anyone who is concerned about this potential bill should sit back and forget about it. I agree it will very likely never gain momentum to pass, but no one should assume it is dead on arrival. That isn't a good strategy, IMO.

It's no secret to Dina OR Maxie's House BOD's that Senator Barto is the Chair of the Senate HHS.

http://azleg.gov/CommitteeInfo.asp?Committee_ID=58

The Chair has a lot of influence and power over whether or not an introduced bill is actually scheduled for a hearing. The Chair determines the complete conduct of the hearing, who speaks, in what order, how long, etc. The chair has complete power over their committee process.

No one should who cares about privacy issues and stalking should assume this potential bill will be killed. Benign neglect of a bad bill is always nice, but it is essential for the groups and individuals who would oppose this potential bill to have a plan in place to respond to the potential bill, if and when it is introduced, IMO.

Because, IMO, nothing kills a bill faster than public discussion over whether or not it is the "right" course of action.

I understand your concerns and I agree, except that public discussion of this bill on sleuthing forums is likely not going to make a difference unless the legislators involved are reading these specific forums. I would highly recommend communicating with the legislators directly via their governmental websites or by their professional e-mail addies, or snail mail addresses, and their direct phone numbers. Better yet, organize a town hall meeting and debate the bill publicly in front of the legislators and the media.

Nancy Barto
Republican
District 15
Senate
1700 W. Washington
Room 307
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone Number: (602) 926-5766
Fax Number: (602) 417-3261
Email Address: [email protected]

 

[K_Z]

Thanks, bourne! I guess I was being too obtuse--I was inferring that interested individuals should contact the senator's office directly, but wasn't clear! I agree that an online discussion is only a beginning.

The most appropriate discussions will occur in Arizona, by interested AZ stakeholders. State Senators may not be very concerned with what the opinions are of out of state individuals, but when the discussion is local, and involves local stakeholders, they listen.

For example, one organization that may be very interested in opposing this proposed legislation is the Arizona ACLU. They have great interest in matters of privacy-- and I do think that the premise of this proposal-- that would essentially validate stalking, and coerce private information from one private citizen to another private citizen, may be something they would oppose with direct action. An interested person could contact the AZ ACLU using the information on their website.

http://www.acluaz.org/

Their staff:

http://www.acluaz.org/about-us/acluaz-staff

Some of the privacy issues they are working on:

http://www.acluaz.org/issues/privacy-and-technology

 

[K_Z]

I meant to post this a while back as a reference for this thread-- Arizona Revised Statute (updated Feb 19, 2012)- Title 25 (discusses aspects of custody in divorce cases)

ARS 25-403.05 already establishes who and what the AZ legislature has mandated must be reported from one parent to the other, about the individuals who have access to the child in a divorce/ co-parenting situation.

B. A child's parent or custodian must immediately notify the other parent or custodian if the parent or custodian knows that a convicted or registered sex offender or a person who has been convicted of a dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-705 may have access to the child. The parent or custodian must provide notice by first class mail, return receipt requested, by electronic means to an electronic mail address that the recipient provided to the parent or custodian for notification purposes or by other communication accepted by the court.

http://law.onecle.com/arizona/marital-and-domestic-relations/25-403.05.html

BBM

AZ 13-705 Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 13 Criminal Code - Section 13-705 Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions

http://law.onecle.com/arizona/criminal-code/13-705.html

This is a good read. Shoplifting isn't mentioned anywhere.

P. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Dangerous crime against children" means any of the following that is committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age:

(a) Second degree murder.

(b) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

(c) Sexual assault.

(d) Molestation of a child.

(e) Sexual conduct with a minor.

(f) Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.

(g) Sexual exploitation of a minor.

(h) Child abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.

(i) Kidnapping.

(j) Sexual abuse.

(k) Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3206.

(l) Child prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3212.

(m) Involving or using minors in drug offenses.

(n) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.

(o) Attempted first degree murder.

(p) Sex trafficking.

(q) Manufacturing methamphetamine under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.

(r) Bestiality as prescribed in section 13-1411, subsection A, paragraph 2.

(s) Luring a minor for sexual exploitation.

(t) Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation.

(u) Unlawful age misrepresentation.

2. "Predicate felony" means any felony involving child abuse pursuant to section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1, a sexual offense, conduct involving the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury or the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or a dangerous crime against children in the first or second degree.

 

[Carioca]

Thanks K_Z - I don't see "Denying junk food and candy" on that list
:floorlaugh:

 

[Cailin Rua]

Or if you're concerned about your ex's new partner just post their name and birthdate here and in 24 hours you will know everything about them including a google map image of them hanging underwear on a line in their backyard?

 

[time]

I agree, time. If this idea were to make it as far as a committee hearing (and I think that is a VERY long shot, indeed, with Senator Barto up for re-election in 2014), I think the issues of these provisions will be hotly debated, and ultimately kill the potential bill. This "law" would be used far more often, IMO, as a weapon from one spouse against another, and an "excuse" to drag their former partner into family court, and intimidate, stigmatize, and stalk their new friends.

It is also very troubling for children who are older than toddlers, and are put smack in the middle, as Maxie was. Will this "law" further traumatize children of "blended families" by bitter ex-spouses who may insist that they shun, dislike, and not bond with or respect the new partner? Will this new "law" create a whole lot of discord among co-parents of "blended families"?? These are questions worthy of VERY public debate.

For example, what is the "appropriate" amount of time 2 people have to know one another before they are officially a BF/ GF/ or Partner, and the bitter ex-spouse can demand the "voluntary background check and one form of ID"? What if the targeted person isn't a BF/ GF/ partner, but just hangs around a lot? What about the BFs/ GFs of teens in the home? Are they fair game for background checks?

What if the new love interest decides they don't want to cooperate? Does this "law" mandate that the spouse turn over privileged identity data to the bitter ex-spouse anyway? Will the spouse who REFUSES to agree to provide the identity info be penalized in family court?? Dina and Maxie's House are calling for voluntary cooperation. If the bitter ex-spouse goes ahead and stalks the new partner anyway, performing INVOLUNTARY, UNCONSENTED "background checks", or uses a private investigator, can they then be charged with stalking? Where is the line? Where are the limits?

What if the bitter ex-spouse requesting the "voluntary, consented background check" takes it too far, and sleuths stuff they shouldn't about the new partner, now that they have their personal information? Is that stalking? Parking tickets? Late payments on bills?

What if the targeted person for the background check denies they are in a relationship with the co-parent? What if the targeted person-- heavens! is committing adultery?? What if they are using an alias while they commit adultery?

Which agency will perform the "background" check? Local police? State? Private investigators hired by the bitter ex-spouse? If a state agency is involved, will they just report "pass or fail" to the bitter ex-spouse, or will they provide every parking ticket? How many years will they go back? How often will bitter ex-spouses be able to demand subsequent background checks? Once a year? Once every 3 years?

What about all of the rights to privacy of the new partner?

The ramifications of this proposed legislation are enormous. It cannot simply be boiled down to some little "check box", as was discussed in the Split Decision article. Bottom line, no state needs a new law to legitimize voluntary cooperation between divorcing co-parents.

IMO, what Dina REALLY was pushing for was the right to do INVOLUNTARY, unconsented private investigation (stalking) of any person the bitter ex-spouse decides they want to investigate.

Yeah, it's just another pet bill someone wants introduced and all the ramifications are not thought through, especially how it would be enacted (what are the boundaries of it) and how might it adversely affect families and children. What is the sense of a bill that legislates someone voluntarily agreeing anyway?

 

[*Lash*]

Yeah, it's just another pet bill someone wants introduced and all the ramifications are not thought through, especially how it would be enacted (what are the boundaries of it) and how might it adversely affect families and children. What is the sense of a bill that legislates someone voluntarily agreeing anyway?

BBM - In my opinion, the "voluntary part" is an attempt to down play the privacy issues surrounding Dina's proposal. At this time our legislators are on high alert when it comes to privacy issues and are likely to steer clear of proposals that could be seen as an invasion of privacy. Senator Barto appears very passionate about the loopholes in Obamacare that affects the patients right to privacy. I believe Senator Barto has more pressing matters on her plate. I think it would be irresponsible of her should this bill ever see the floor, but unfortunately money talks.