More Suffering for Jason Pratt's Children

Most of us with children would like to believe that if we die while our kids are still young, at least they will have their grandparents. Right? In some states, yes, but here in Nebraska the answer is no. Grandparents have no particular right to visitation with their grandchildren and the courts send a clear message that family means nothing in this state and grandparents are irrelevant.

Case in point: Mike and Rita Pratt, the parents of slain police officer Jason Pratt are fighting to preserve their relationship with their late son's children. According to court documents filed in Douglas County, the Pratts had a very close relationship with the kids until this past October when they were abruptly cut out of the children's lives. According to a letter sent to the Pratts by their former daughter-in-law's attorney, Donald Roberts, the officer's widow now refuses to allow the children to have any contact with their grandparents (though it's not stated I imagine that this only applies to Jason's parents). There has been no accusation of abuse or neglect. The only reason given is "my client is convinced that there is no significant beneficial relationship between you and the minor children".

Well Mr. Roberts, I am convinced that these kids have a right to grandparents. Moreover, I believe that the Pratts, including these children have been through enough without having to deal with this petty little power game. As I recall, the citizens of Nebraska were very generous in giving money to help the Pratt family after Jason's death. It is too bad none of it's being used to help Jason's mother and father. Instead, it's being used to force them out of the children's lives.

Bravo to the Pratts for fighting to keep their family together and the same to Amy Geren, their attorney, for helping them do the right thing.

Another example of the need for a joint custody law in Ne

Sen. DiAnna Schimek has introduced a bill, LB 322 presumably at the request of Tara Muir and the Domestic Violence grant jockeys which will expand abuse to include economic abuse (not defined), intimidation (not defined), isolation (not defined) and best of all "neglect of an animal".

Anyone (actually, any male) who has ever been accused of such a thing at any point in the past against an" intimate partner" (in case you don't understand what that means, it is a gay/lesbian rights term used to replace the words husband, wife, family member, significant other) will not be able to fight for custody and visitation with their children and the address of the mother and children will be hidden. Just so this is clear, the mother doesn't have to be the actual victim and the father need not be the abuser. If an ex-girlfriend of yours claims that you forgot to feed her cat, the victimization of the cat is transferred to the ex-girlfriend and at any time the ex girlfriend may assign her victimization via the cat to another person, likely your ex-wife. You will not be eligible for custody or visitation because by default the mother can yet again assign her victimization, via the cat and ex girlfriend to the children.

Another example: The bill states that whether or not visitation is ordered, the victim may conceal her address from the father of the children. Lets assume that your ex wife is abused by her current boyfriend. For the sake of argument lets say that he asks her for change when he gives her money to buy something (yes, that's an actual example of economic abuse straight from the Domestic Violence crew). Now he has become an abuser and she has certainly become a card carrying victim. She can have the court seal the address and contact information of your children because she is labeled "victim". In other words, mom can stop your visitation by claiming that some other person has victimized her.

Since the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services claims that a woman's boyfriend is twice as likely to kill her child than the childs father (Child Death Review Report 1996-2001, page 45 ), it is undeniable that this bill is not an attempt to protect children. There is no mention of denying a woman custody or visitation if she insists on living with and exposing her children to an "abuser. LB 322 is designed to be used as a stick with which vindictive and abusive women can pound their children, former partners, and the legal system.