Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal

[*Lash*]

You're welcome

I agree. It is wonderful news. I hope this is a sign Dina has found some peace with the tragic loss of her son and is now able to move forward. I'm sure it is not an easy thing to do.

 

[MyBelle]

Reasonable people would hope not as the "Maxie's Law" legislation would open a lot of cans of worms for not only investigating a divorcee's new partner/lover by a jilted, jealous, hateful, scorned, vindictive ex-spouse but also start a slippery slope on potential investigations into family members/relatives of said partner/lover. IMO, this should be properly called the "Stalker Ex-Spouse Law".

I think you're onto something as Dina's motive for obtaining her PsyD license. She wants to be seen as a "licensed expert" so that her "credibility" as "child psychologist" would be taken more seriously in both a court of law during the WDS, and also when her proposed legislation goes into deliberation by the local government.

I don't believe she will pass the licensing exam the first time around. From what I can tell, she's not as smart as she thinks she is. Quite frankly, her manipulative ploys to point fingers at the Zahaus for Max's death and divert attention from her own guilt have not been in the slightest way effective in the public eye but she appears to be trying her hardest to convince herself otherwise.

I think reasonable people would have no problem understanding a parent's need to be assured the caregiver of their child has a clean record. Background checks are required of all teachers and daycare workers.

It's not about being vindictive, it's about truly caring for the child. Max's fall was easily preventable.

JMO

 

[*Lash*]

I think reasonable people would have no problem understanding a parent's need to be assured the caregiver of their child has a clean record. Background checks are required of all teachers and daycare workers.

It's not about being vindictive, it's about truly caring for the child. Max's fall was easily preventable.

JMO

How would Dina's proposal have prevented Maxie's accident? Dina actually did some due diligence work on her exhusbands girlfriend. In my opinion, researching Rebecca's background did nothing to prevent Maxie's death. If anything it shows the flaws of Dina's proposal, even how the proposal would have failed. Sometimes thing just happen.

 

[MyBelle]

How would Dina's proposal have prevented Maxie's accident? Dina actually did some due diligence work on her exhusbands girlfriend. In my opinion, researching Rebecca's background did nothing to prevent Maxie's death. If anything it shows the flaws of Dina's proposal, even how the proposal would have failed. Sometimes thing just happen.

It was an easily preventable incident. Dina publicly stated she had great difficulty obtaining the information on RZ.

I'm not sure why you believe a parent should not be able to know the background of a person caring for their child but I'm all for it.

JMO

 

[*Lash*]

It was an easily preventable incident. Dina publicly stated she had great difficulty obtaining the information on RZ.

I'm not sure why you believe a parent should not be able to know the background of a person caring for their child but I'm all for it.

JMO

Can you please explain how Maxie's accident was easily preventable?

Respectfully, I did not say I did not believe a parent should not know the background of a person caring for their child. An ex spouse can have a partner that does not care for their child. There is a difference between a caregiver and a partner.

 

[MyBelle]

Can you please explain how Maxie's accident was easily preventable?

Respectfully, I did not say I did not believe a parent should not know the background of a person caring for their child. An ex spouse can have a partner that does not care for their child. There is a difference between a caregiver and a partner.

I don't believe Max had an accident.

RZ lived in Max's father's home. She was a caregiver.

 

[justice be served]

I don't believe Max had an accident.

RZ lived in Max's father's home. She was a caregiver.

Well I don't know about your interpretation of a partner versus a caregiver, but this article plainly shows that Rebecca was indeed Jonah's partner. Not a babysitter - not a caregiver.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ecca-Nalepa-hanged-mansion.html#ixzz2AdaA7eLO

 

[MyBelle]

Well I don't know about your interpretation of a partner versus a caregiver, but this article plainly shows that Rebecca was indeed Jonah's partner. Not a babysitter - not a caregiver.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ecca-Nalepa-hanged-mansion.html#ixzz2AdaA7eLO

The law considers anyone over 18 who has responsibility to care for a child to be a caregiver.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/caregiver/

 

[Mr Spock]

The law considers anyone over 18 who has responsibility to care for a child to be a caregiver.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/caregiver/

Can the "caregiver" or new girlfriend use a fake FIRST name with the kids for many years to hide her identity? For example: I am assuming Dina would not have been OK with Rebecca telling Max her name was "Lara" ? I'm just trying to clarify here what is and is not OK with Dina's proposed law.

 

[K_Z]

Arizona State Senator Nancy Barto has revealed what she is highly interested in for the 2014 legislative session. And it isn’t Dina Shacknai’s “Parental Disclosure” idea. It’s the Medicaid Expansion Plan for Arizona that would add 300,000 Arizonans to the Medicaid plan.

State legislators often “signal” what their priorities will be for the next legislative session during the session break “off season.”

This demonstrates the issue as one of her priorities in April 2013, during the 2013 session:

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/04/16/az-senate-revives-vetoed-medical-care-pricing-bill/

And this demonstrates that the Medicaid Expansion remains one of her top priorities even in the “off season” between legislative sessions.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Nancy_K._Barto

Nancy K. Barto is one of the 36 Republican members of the state legislature who signed onto a lawsuit in September 2013 against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer with the conservative Goldwater Institute over the Arizona Medicaid Expansion.

[2] Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act in June 2012, Brewer, a Republican who had long fought for its repeal, ultimately broke ranks with her party on the issue of Medicaid.

[3] She first publicly embraced Arizona's participation in the federally controlled Medicaid expansion during her 2013 State of the State address. In addition to conceding the futility of continued opposition to Obamacare in the wake of the Supreme Court decision and Obama's re-election victory, Brewer discussed the considerable popular support for expanding patient eligibility: residents had already voted twice to make the state government provide free care for everyone up to the federal poverty line.

It is my opinion that Arizona State Senator Barto is signaling that Dina Shacknai’s idea for a “parental disclosure” bill will NOT be one of her top priorities in the 2014 session. And the Arizona legislative session starts Jan 31, 2014.

If Senator Barto is going to go “full on” supporting Dina Shacknai’s idea for the parental disclosure bill in 2014, this would be the time when we would begin to hear Senator Barto (and other supportive legislators) talking publicly about it. This is the time to muster bi-partisan support. And, well, the silence is deafening, thus far.

JMO, but much bigger societal issues seem to be on Senator Barto’s agenda right now, which is where her legislative attention is focused. It’s my opinion that Dina’s publicized idea that names Senator Barto as a “sponsor” for Dina’s vague parental disclosure ideas in the AZ 2014 legislative session, is not really even on Senator Barto’s radar, right?

Legislators “talk up” the issues that they will support in the next session, during the "between session" period. That is how they work to get their issues passed. They make the rounds gathering other legislator’s support for their proposed bills-- preferably, bipartisan support, which makes passage easier. They shop the ideas for the bills to the media, to gauge public support. And we have not heard one single public word from Senator Barto about Dina’s proposed idea for a bitter ex-spouse stalking bill. Surprise bills don’t usually do well during a short legislative session—they die pretty quickly without a big contingent of supporters already in place before they are introduced. (That isn’t a big secret in state legislative politics, lol!)

I wonder why we haven’t heard anything public from Senator Barto, or her office, about Dina’s idea for a bill? Hmmmm....

IMO, because Dina’s idea isn’t on her agenda as a top priority for 2014. I think Dina Shacknai "name dropped" Senator Barto too soon in the Phoenix magazine article, before Senator Barto was clearly on board with Dina's ideas for a bill. JMO. I guess we will see what happens with Dina's ideas for a bill in the 2014 AZ legislative session, right? IMO, Dina's idea for the bill is already dead in the water for 2014.

 

[SweetT]

I think Dina's intentions for this bill are sincere but I do think it probably lacks any backing, as most people would find this intrusive.
I mean unfortunately there is not much we can do if our ex spouses marry someone who is crazy or might harm our children until after the fact of knowing they're unstable or something bad has happened to your child. But I have seen divorce agreements where it is written in the divorce that the ex spouse is not allowed to have the company of someone of the opposite sex spending the night at their home, if they are not married and if the kids are there on visitation.
I also know that even this is a hard one to prove in court. A lot of folks find ways around it, or just don't give it any credence and ignore the order.
Another option that a lot of folks do already is an online background inquiry. This is very helpful but if you find something disturbing then again your stuck with nothing you can do really. My ex's new wife had recently been convicted of contributing to the delinquency of minors. Do you think that made me feel comfortable with my children over at his home with her? NO not at all but legally I had no recourse available to me and of course they made it out like it was no big deal and just a big mis understanding but I still got no real information or help.
I was a single mom with little income and that did not help either.

 

[kittychi]

I don't believe Max had an accident.

RZ lived in Max's father's home. She was a caregiver.

If you don't believe that Max had an accident, then what difference does it make if RZ was called a partner or a caregiver?

 

[kittychi]

It was an easily preventable incident. Dina publicly stated she had great difficulty obtaining the information on RZ.

I'm not sure why you believe a parent should not be able to know the background of a person caring for their child but I'm all for it.

JMO

I do not understand how Dina's proposal could have prevented Max's fall unless RZ had a record of harming children or of some type of assault.

How does shoplifting point to a future of murdering a child?

 

[MyBelle]

If you don't believe that Max had an accident, then what difference does it make if RZ was called a partner or a caregiver?

Many accidents are the result of negligence. The thread is about caregivers of children. Every parent should have the right to know a caregiver's background. It sounds as though Max's mother never did find out everything she wanted to know. I have to wonder if Jonah knew everything.

JMO

 

[screecher]

Many accidents are the result of negligence. The thread is about caregivers of children. Every parent should have the right to know a caregiver's background. It sounds as though Max's mother never did find out everything she wanted to know. I have to wonder if Jonah knew everything.

JMO

I have no doubt Maxie's mom (Dina Romano), checked out Rebecca's past. DR probably knew how long, what time, trade name of toothpaste and with what hand RZ brushed her pearly teeth with. Cripes, DR probably knew what Rebecca and Max ate for breakfast every day. <modsnip>

Now, WTH would one think someone was using an alias...unless someone is guilty of doing the same?


Oh. And, IMOO, it's no secret DR was looking for an alias. Some peeps do use an alias.


Dina Romano described her Maxie as a peace maker. WOW. A peace maker? A little kid? Wow.


If one believes in an after-life, Rebecca and Maxie will forever be connected.

 

[screecher]

...I have to wonder if Jonah knew everything.

JMO

snipped by me

I wonder if Rebecca Zahau knew what she was getting herself involved in. I confess, I haven't read DR's Max's act. Is there anywhere in her proposal where it say's significant others/or and not significant others are able to invade another's privacy just because one feels like it?

 

[kittychi]

Many accidents are the result of negligence. The thread is about caregivers of children. Every parent should have the right to know a caregiver's background. It sounds as though Max's mother never did find out everything she wanted to know. I have to wonder if Jonah knew everything.

JMO

Can you please be specific about what you are implying? You are besmirching a dead person's reputation to fit your narrative that she murdered a little boy. Apparently Dina found shoplifting to be the most criminal thing Rebecca had done.

What do you suppose Dina would have found if she had everything she was looking for? And what is the "everything" that you wonder if Jonah knew?

 

[K_Z]

This thread is not about caregivers of children.

This thread is about Dina Shacknai's efforts to persuade an Arizona state legislator to sponsor and introduce a bill.

This thread isn't even really about a bill, because there isn't a bill. Just Dina talking about a bill. So that's an idea for a bill, not a bill.

Despite Dina's misrepresentations in the Phoenix magazine article, there was no "bill" submitted for consideration during the 2012-13 AZ legislative session. In the Phoenix Magazine article she is either completely unfamiliar with the AZ bill to law process, or she was deliberately misrepresenting her "idea" as though it was already a bill. I wonder which?

There was no actual bill-- her idea for a bill was never far enough along in the process to be submitted in the hopper to be registered and numbered. Therefore it was never introduced. Therefore it was never read. Therefore it never "made it to committee". Yet another example, IMO, of how Dina exaggerates and inflates anything related to herself. I wonder why Dina does things like that? Because that could sabotage her idea pretty early in the process.

I wonder if Dina ever actually spoke personally with Senator Nancy Barto? She says Senator Barto is the sponsor. But there was no "bill", therefore there was no "sponsor." Senator Barto has never even mentioned this issue in public, or on any of her websites. And Senator Barto has not partnered in public with Dina, or anyone from her nonprofit to support or talk up this idea for a bill. I wonder why? The time between legislative sessions is an ideal time to publicize ideas and issues. Time to gauge public response. Time to gather the necessary allies to get it passed.

I wonder why no other child advocacy groups are supporting this idea for a bill?

Senator Barto has not demonstrated anything to show she supports this idea, nor that she intends to sponsor and introduce it in Jan 2014. I wonder why?

I wonder why none of the other board members of Maxie's House aren't publicizing this idea for a bill?

I wonder why no one from Maxie's House has given a press conference together with Senator Barto?

I wonder why Maxie's House does not have a registered lobbyist? Especially since one of their board members used to BE a registered lobbyist years ago for another organization. Arizona has some of the strictest lobbying rules in the country. Dina is publicizing her "relationship" with Senator Barto as a "sponsor of the bill" in her role as the representative of Maxie's House. By AZ law, Dina cannot claim she is acting as a private citizen in her contact, if any, with Senator Barto for anything related to this idea for a bill. Therefore, Dina AND Maxie's House need to abide by AZ laws in their influence and lobbying process, or they risk consequences that would sabotage their "idea" for a bill.

I wonder if this "idea" for a bill has been abandoned? Because the inevitable media publicity about Dina's past violent behavior, and being named as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit that alleges murder, will just not be that "beneficial" for Dina, Senator Barto, or Maxie's House, IMO.

There is a good chance that discovery and depositions will be occurring in the civil WDS, just about the time the AZ legislature is back in session. That will be interesting. The media will love covering that, IMO.

 

[inthedark14]

This thread is not about caregivers of children.

This thread is about Dina Shacknai's efforts to persuade an Arizona state legislator to sponsor and introduce a bill.
<respectfully snipped by me>

Does anyone know what effect being the defendant of any kind of lawsuit has towards introducing a bill into government? I'm pretty sure you can't serve on a jury (maybe only civil, not sure about criminal) while involved in a lawsuit, so what happens when you are trying to pass something into law? I wonder if there is any history of people who have been (in any kind of court) tried for wrongful death, i.e. murder, introducing bills that would help further their agenda? I wonder if history shows some kind of precedent to someone doing such a thing? Or is it more of a Jodi Arias thing of trying to sling all kinds of mud against the murdered person while on trial? This case has certainly been in the court of public opinion for some time.

 

[Betty P]

Does anyone know what effect being the defendant of any kind of lawsuit has towards introducing a bill into government? I'm pretty sure you can't serve on a jury (maybe only civil, not sure about criminal) while involved in a lawsuit, so what happens when you are trying to pass something into law? I wonder if there is any history of people who have been (in any kind of court) tried for wrongful death, i.e. murder, introducing bills that would help further their agenda? I wonder if history shows some kind of precedent to someone doing such a thing? Or is it more of a Jodi Arias thing of trying to sling all kinds of mud against the murdered person while on trial? This case has certainly been in the court of public opinion for some time.

Having some past experience in this field, the chances of getting a bill of this nature introduced under these circumstances is nil. In some cases, the bill could be distanced from the controversial advocate by putting someone else in charge of the advocacy effort and re-naming the bill. But since the proposed bill is named for DR's child and is being promoted by her non-profit, that's impossible.

No legislator wants to sponsor or co-sponsor a bill that is attached to someone mired in scandal and legal troubles, especially related to murder. They all have to run for re-election and don't need that kind of baggage. If anything, a friendly legislator may tell her to hold off pushing the bill until the scandal and lawsuit have blown over.