The Survivors Shield Act
The Survivors Shield Act
The Issue
While I have this written out in it full extent on my gofundme page as well to acquire the means to bring this into legislation, please add your name to our petition here as every signature counts when it comes to making change. And please also spread the word with others, share this petition far and wide!
Here is what we are fighting for:
I believe that whole, healthy families are the foundation of a strong community. However, the law must recognize a critical distinction: Parental rights should never be used as a weapon of pursuit. When a mother is forced to flee for the safety of herself and her child, the court system should not act as a GPS for the person she is fleeing. We are raising funds to advocate for a 'Survivors Shield Act'—a legislative filter that ensures no child is used as a pawn in a cycle of litigation abuse or domestic violence.
The current Paternity Petition (Form 5-1) operates within a dangerous administrative vacuum that I have identified as the "Anonymity of Abuse" loophole. By focusing strictly on biological data points, such as the period of intercourse, the form maintains a total silence on the dissolution of the relationship and fails to ask whether the intercourse was consensual or the result of reproductive coercion. This lack of conduct disclosure means that petitioners are never required to flag active orders of protection or histories of domestic violence, effectively stripping the court of any proactive safety screening. Furthermore, the low legal threshold of "information and belief" allows a petitioner to initiate a lawsuit—and thereby locate a survivor—based on a mere hunch without disclosing a history of child welfare investigations or serial litigation patterns involving other families. This systemic vagueness shifts the entire burden of safety onto the respondent, allowing the court to be weaponized as a tool for pursuit rather than a venue for justice.
So I have proposed a series of questions/topics to the processing requirements to add to the petition form itself:
Section 1: Legal & Safety Disclosures
• Legal Protections: Are there currently, or have there ever been, any Orders of Protection (Temporary or Permanent) involving the Petitioner and the Respondent?
• Criminal History Disclosure: Has the Petitioner ever been arrested or convicted of an offense involving domestic violence, harassment, or physical assault against the Respondent?
• Circumstances of Relationship Dissolution: Please describe the factual circumstances under which the parties ceased cohabitation or communication (e.g., mutual agreement, relocation without notice, or intervention by law enforcement).
• Documented Medical/Police Intervention: Are there any hospital records, 911 call logs, or Domestic Incident Reports (DIRs) documenting physical disputes between the parties?
• Safety & Lethality Risk Factors: Has the Petitioner ever made documented threats of self-harm, harm to others, or used access to weapons to influence the Respondent’s actions?
Section 2: Institutional & Fitness History
• Prior Family Court History: List all prior Family Court proceedings (Paternity, Custody, Support, or Family Offense) the Petitioner has been a party to involving any other co-parents or children.
• Child Protective Services (CPS) History: Has the Petitioner ever been a subject of an "Indicated" report or an investigation by any child welfare agency?
• Institutional Child Removal: Have any children ever been removed from the Petitioner’s physical or legal custody by a court or government agency?
• Concurrent Investigations: Is the Petitioner currently a party to any active criminal, civil, or administrative investigations that involve the Respondent or the child?
Section 3: Standards of Care for Other Children
• Welfare & Hygiene Audit: Has the Petitioner ever been cited or investigated for failing to provide basic standards of care (e.g., hygiene, nutrition, or a clean and safe home environment) for any child currently or previously in their care?
• Educational & Medical Stability: Is there a history of chronic absenteeism, educational neglect, or failure to maintain necessary medical/dental appointments for any child in the Petitioner's care?
• Basis for Petition: Given the above history and circumstances of the separation, state the specific grounds upon which the Petitioner is seeking a court-ordered legal relationship with the child at this time.
The Principle of Due Process Reciprocity
Due process is not a one-way street. Currently, the system protects a petitioner’s right to "Due Process" while ignoring the fact that the petitioner may have used illegal leaks, unauthorized surveillance, stalking by proxy, or corrupt data to dismantle the respondent’s due process and locate them for pursuit. We believe that Safety and Integrity are Prerequisites for Litigation. A petitioner who bypasses the law to "hunt" a respondent should not be rewarded with the court's protection. If the petitioner’s "due process" comes at the cost of the respondent’s right to life and constitutional privacy, the law has failed. We are fighting to ensure that parentage is never prioritized over a child’s safety or a survivor’s survival.
Why I Am Leading This Fight
I am moving forward with this legislative push not merely as an advocate, but as a person who has lived the consequences of these administrative gaps. I have personally experienced how the current system can be used to bypass safety protocols, turning a standard court filing into a tool for pursuit. This "loophole" has cost me nearly everything—my stability, my sense of security, and my resources.
While my specific story is the catalyst, it is not the primary goal. The goal is to ensure that my experience, and that of others, becomes a thing of the past. I am presenting this for survivors everywhere who deserve a court system that prioritizes human safety over paperwork efficiency. Because the current legal battle has exhausted my personal resources, I am seeking outside funding to sustain this mission. Your support provides the means I need to take this framework from a draft to the halls of Congress, ensuring that no other mother or child pays the price for a vague form.
In every other area of the law, the depth of the disclosure must match the weight of the outcome. We do not allow vague information when filing for a tax exemption or a building permit, yet we allow it when determining the lifelong custody and safety of an innocent child. A paternity petition should be the most rigorously screened document in the courthouse, not the least.
The 'Survivor's Shield Act' is not designed to obstruct the rights of stable, responsible fathers. In cases where a mother may be unjustly withholding access, a father who is a safe and fit parent will easily clear this screening. A man who has provided a history of care, maintained a clean conduct record, and have never had it on record suggesting they are a risk, will find that these questions serve to validate his standing as a protector. However, when a petitioner cannot answer these questions with integrity, the court must recognize that it is being asked to force a child into a 'sphere of influence' that is inherently dangerous or a degradation from a safe harbor all children deserve. Parentage is a lifelong responsibility, not a biological license to bypass the safety and due process of the family unit.
8
The Issue
While I have this written out in it full extent on my gofundme page as well to acquire the means to bring this into legislation, please add your name to our petition here as every signature counts when it comes to making change. And please also spread the word with others, share this petition far and wide!
Here is what we are fighting for:
I believe that whole, healthy families are the foundation of a strong community. However, the law must recognize a critical distinction: Parental rights should never be used as a weapon of pursuit. When a mother is forced to flee for the safety of herself and her child, the court system should not act as a GPS for the person she is fleeing. We are raising funds to advocate for a 'Survivors Shield Act'—a legislative filter that ensures no child is used as a pawn in a cycle of litigation abuse or domestic violence.
The current Paternity Petition (Form 5-1) operates within a dangerous administrative vacuum that I have identified as the "Anonymity of Abuse" loophole. By focusing strictly on biological data points, such as the period of intercourse, the form maintains a total silence on the dissolution of the relationship and fails to ask whether the intercourse was consensual or the result of reproductive coercion. This lack of conduct disclosure means that petitioners are never required to flag active orders of protection or histories of domestic violence, effectively stripping the court of any proactive safety screening. Furthermore, the low legal threshold of "information and belief" allows a petitioner to initiate a lawsuit—and thereby locate a survivor—based on a mere hunch without disclosing a history of child welfare investigations or serial litigation patterns involving other families. This systemic vagueness shifts the entire burden of safety onto the respondent, allowing the court to be weaponized as a tool for pursuit rather than a venue for justice.
So I have proposed a series of questions/topics to the processing requirements to add to the petition form itself:
Section 1: Legal & Safety Disclosures
• Legal Protections: Are there currently, or have there ever been, any Orders of Protection (Temporary or Permanent) involving the Petitioner and the Respondent?
• Criminal History Disclosure: Has the Petitioner ever been arrested or convicted of an offense involving domestic violence, harassment, or physical assault against the Respondent?
• Circumstances of Relationship Dissolution: Please describe the factual circumstances under which the parties ceased cohabitation or communication (e.g., mutual agreement, relocation without notice, or intervention by law enforcement).
• Documented Medical/Police Intervention: Are there any hospital records, 911 call logs, or Domestic Incident Reports (DIRs) documenting physical disputes between the parties?
• Safety & Lethality Risk Factors: Has the Petitioner ever made documented threats of self-harm, harm to others, or used access to weapons to influence the Respondent’s actions?
Section 2: Institutional & Fitness History
• Prior Family Court History: List all prior Family Court proceedings (Paternity, Custody, Support, or Family Offense) the Petitioner has been a party to involving any other co-parents or children.
• Child Protective Services (CPS) History: Has the Petitioner ever been a subject of an "Indicated" report or an investigation by any child welfare agency?
• Institutional Child Removal: Have any children ever been removed from the Petitioner’s physical or legal custody by a court or government agency?
• Concurrent Investigations: Is the Petitioner currently a party to any active criminal, civil, or administrative investigations that involve the Respondent or the child?
Section 3: Standards of Care for Other Children
• Welfare & Hygiene Audit: Has the Petitioner ever been cited or investigated for failing to provide basic standards of care (e.g., hygiene, nutrition, or a clean and safe home environment) for any child currently or previously in their care?
• Educational & Medical Stability: Is there a history of chronic absenteeism, educational neglect, or failure to maintain necessary medical/dental appointments for any child in the Petitioner's care?
• Basis for Petition: Given the above history and circumstances of the separation, state the specific grounds upon which the Petitioner is seeking a court-ordered legal relationship with the child at this time.
The Principle of Due Process Reciprocity
Due process is not a one-way street. Currently, the system protects a petitioner’s right to "Due Process" while ignoring the fact that the petitioner may have used illegal leaks, unauthorized surveillance, stalking by proxy, or corrupt data to dismantle the respondent’s due process and locate them for pursuit. We believe that Safety and Integrity are Prerequisites for Litigation. A petitioner who bypasses the law to "hunt" a respondent should not be rewarded with the court's protection. If the petitioner’s "due process" comes at the cost of the respondent’s right to life and constitutional privacy, the law has failed. We are fighting to ensure that parentage is never prioritized over a child’s safety or a survivor’s survival.
Why I Am Leading This Fight
I am moving forward with this legislative push not merely as an advocate, but as a person who has lived the consequences of these administrative gaps. I have personally experienced how the current system can be used to bypass safety protocols, turning a standard court filing into a tool for pursuit. This "loophole" has cost me nearly everything—my stability, my sense of security, and my resources.
While my specific story is the catalyst, it is not the primary goal. The goal is to ensure that my experience, and that of others, becomes a thing of the past. I am presenting this for survivors everywhere who deserve a court system that prioritizes human safety over paperwork efficiency. Because the current legal battle has exhausted my personal resources, I am seeking outside funding to sustain this mission. Your support provides the means I need to take this framework from a draft to the halls of Congress, ensuring that no other mother or child pays the price for a vague form.
In every other area of the law, the depth of the disclosure must match the weight of the outcome. We do not allow vague information when filing for a tax exemption or a building permit, yet we allow it when determining the lifelong custody and safety of an innocent child. A paternity petition should be the most rigorously screened document in the courthouse, not the least.
The 'Survivor's Shield Act' is not designed to obstruct the rights of stable, responsible fathers. In cases where a mother may be unjustly withholding access, a father who is a safe and fit parent will easily clear this screening. A man who has provided a history of care, maintained a clean conduct record, and have never had it on record suggesting they are a risk, will find that these questions serve to validate his standing as a protector. However, when a petitioner cannot answer these questions with integrity, the court must recognize that it is being asked to force a child into a 'sphere of influence' that is inherently dangerous or a degradation from a safe harbor all children deserve. Parentage is a lifelong responsibility, not a biological license to bypass the safety and due process of the family unit.
8
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on April 7, 2026