It's not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.

Men's murderous revenge

Illustration: Spooner

It's not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.

Since Arthur Freeman was found guilty of murdering his four-year-old daughter, Darcey, much of the media focus has been on the distress of fathers going through separation and custody disputes. There has been a call for more support for fathers.

However, we must ask ourselves whether we are losing sight of the victims and, more importantly, whether this is the best approach to preventing these deaths from occurring in the future.

While the community understandably struggles to comprehend a parent killing a child, our research shows that these are not inexplicable tragedies. There is a particular type of filicide (the killing of children by parents) that occurs in the context of the separation of the parents.

In these ''spousal revenge'' cases - as recognised by the Freeman jury - fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners. There is usually no prior violence against the children. In fact, they appear to love their children. The act of killing is directed towards harming the child's mother. The motive is revenge.

In the case of Freeman and Robert Farquharson (found guilty of three counts of murder of his sons Bailey, Tyler and Jai, aged two to 10, who drowned in a dam near Winchelsea), both fathers indicated that they wished to punish their ex-partner. Shortly before killing Darcey, Freeman told his ex-wife to say goodbye to her children and that she would never see them again - clearly to make her suffer. Farquharson told a friend that he would make his ex-wife suffer by taking what mattered to her most - her children.

Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it.

There is no logic to the thinking that if a person is distressed about not spending enough time with their kids they would decide to kill them.

If, however, they are consumed with anger and hatred towards their ex-partner and wish to hurt them, then it is, tragically, a very effective means to do so.

The killing of the children in such cases should be recognised as a form of violence against the mother. We need to explore the relationship between the parents in order to understand the killing of children. In particular, the father's attitudes and behaviour towards the mother before, and after, separation must be examined. VicHealth has clearly identified the underlying causes of violence against women as including belief in rigid gender roles and a masculine sense of entitlement.

What we really need to challenge is the sense of entitlement that some men have over their families, an entitlement that leads them to believe that their partner has no right to leave them and no right to form a new relationship, and that punishing her is justified because of the suffering they themselves experience.

The current focus of commentary suggests that men are victims of the family law system. The mothers seem to be implicitly blamed for the distress their partners experienced when they left them.

Let's be clear: the first and foremost victims here are the children whose lives are taken. The mothers, whose children have died in perhaps the worst way imaginable, are also the victims, as are remaining siblings and other family members. Darcey Freeman's mother, Peta Barnes, had expressed concerns about the safety of her children before Darcey's death. She also expressed concerns about Arthur Freeman's ''anger management issues'' and mood swings. It is important that such concerns are heard and responded to appropriately by a broad range of professionals coming into contact with separating parents, as well as by family and friends.

The family law process must make children's safety its absolute priority. Importantly, the federal government has a family law bill before Parliament that prioritises the safety of children in family law matters.

The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoriaacknowledges that separation and family breakdown can be incredibly difficult for parents. Parents should be assisted to deal with separation and encouraged to take responsibility for their behaviour. As a community, we need to focus on building positive and respectful relationships.

We support the call for greater services and support. We ask that these services be equipped to identify and respond to risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents. We need to ensure there is accurate and reliable screening and risk assessment for all forms of family violence. These cases demonstrate that the risk of harm to children is closely linked to risks of harm to the mother.

Cases such as Freeman's have a profound impact on the community and we are right to search for answers. Unfortunately, there has been very little research on parents who kill their children in the past decade in Australia. If we are to find ways to prevent these deaths, we need a far better understanding of why and how they occur.

Arthur Freeman: Father is a cold blooded murderer of his 4 year old daughter Darcy Freeman whom was thrown from the west gate bridge to her death. video of the murder scene.

Contains Video Footage of Arthur Freeman Murdering 4 year old Darcy throwing her off the bridge After being awarded shared parenting.

Herald Sun

Galleries: The death of Darcey Freeman http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/photo-gallery/gallery-e6frf94x-1111120724397?page=20

   

impropriety? Learn the language….

Hat tip to Sbry for this!

There is a collaboration of differences within the court system itself. If a judge orders you to a specific person, i.e. psychologist, GAL, etc... it is presumed that this person has been before the judge; for the judge to determine their merits. In that example, the question of the judges opinion of that person is called upon. Why would a judge specifically ask for this person, and although he/she has been before the judge, what were the reasons for the judge to specifically require a person to see this specific person?I believe that the first instant this happens, the litigant has the right to know why, the very reason a judge chooses another person to come into any case.

What exactly is it that the judge saw in this person? How long has this person been before this judge? Has there been any other functions that the judge and this person been to? Do they have the same circle of friends? How many cases has this judge ordered litigants to see this person? Does the judge have this persons direct number? Has the judge called this person? (In the last 3 months, 6 months, 9 months?) It is questionable when a judge orders anything out of the normal function and I figured when we have more to lose, that is when the judge gets nasty...that's when they require more, expect you to jump through hoops set on fire, when in all essence, they know you will not be able to.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-indifference/

Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.

In law, the courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if a professional has violated an inmate’s civil rights. Deliberate indifference occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Even though it is difficult to identify what does and does not constitute deliberate indifference, courts have recognized several factual scenarios where deliberate indifference exists. For example, intentionally refusing to respond to an inmate’s complaints has been acknowledged as constituting deliberate indifference. [Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1366 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997)]; Intentionally delaying medical care for a known injury (i.e. a broken wrist) has been held to constitute deliberate indifference. [Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994).]

The following are examples of case law discussing deliberate indifference

Prison employees who act with deliberate indifference to the inmates' safety violate the Eighth Amendment. But to be guilty of "deliberate indifference" they must know they are creating a substantial risk of bodily harm. If they place a prisoner in a cell that has a cobra, but they do not know that there is a cobra there (or even that there is a high probability that there is a cobra there), they are not guilty of deliberate indifference even if they should have known about the risk, that is, even if they were negligent--even grossly negligent or even reckless in the tort sense--in failing to know. But if they know that there is a cobra there or at least that there is a high probability of a cobra there, and do nothing, that is deliberate indifference.[Billman v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. Ind. 1995)]

Deliberate indifference is defined as “a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” Crayton v. Quarterman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103709 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2009)

Deliberate indifference is defined as requiring (1) an "awareness of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and (2) the actual "drawing of the inference." Elliott v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91125 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2009).

Learn the language........

Punish the Children if They Refuse to Go With the Abuser

BATTERED MOTHERS, CHILD CUSTODY, ABUSE AND MURDER

Societal accepted ‘norms’-Approve Abuse and Murder of Women and Children

Child abuse: when family courts get it wrong By Kathleen Russell »

 

Claudine Dombrowski after another beating by her daughter’s father, Hal Richardson

Well, this is very Gardneristic (the pedophile-loving psychologist that invented so-called “parental alienation syndrome”)…punish the children if they won’t go to the dad willingly.  Yes, this is happening.   Could you see Claudine Dombrowski (pictured to the left) telling her daughter it is her desire to that shesees and loves her father (the father that produced the injuries in the picture, who eventually caused her to be 100% disabled)?  (I don’t think anyone could lie that well.)  Instead, her daughter’s father keeps her from seeing her mother.

The American Psychological Association is living in La La Land, or doing some serious drugs, if they believe that children in joint custody have fewer behavior issues if one of those parents abuses the other parent.  But what is more common is for abusers to get custody, like in Claudine Dombrowski’s case…..yes, they may start off with joint custody, under the “friendly parent” sharade, but they quickly work towards securing sole custody away from their victims. This is “domestic violence by proxy.”

So send the children off to the abuser, even though they beg and cry not to go.  Even though they tell you they are getting “bad touches” or being violated in some way.  Even if your children are being raped.  Off they go or you will be punished.  No matter what the children will think of you for making them go.   When will these organizations that represent Whores of the Courtrealize that children are harmed far more by being forced to be with an abuser or rapist than forcing them to love mommy and daddy, no matter what?  Shouldn’t it make sense to these people that the relationship the parent had before the breakup (or didn’t have) should mean something, instead of forcing something down the children’s throats?

Judge Tells Mom: Punish Kids For Skipping Visits With Dad

by Melissa Kossler Dutton

Oct 1st 2009 4:08PM

Australian kids who want to skip visits with dad may find themselves without video games, television or other favorite pastimes.

A judge has ordered a mother to deny her children privileges until they comply with a court order requiring them to spend time with their father.The judge said noncustodial parents need to “positively encourage” visitation and start “removing privileges if the child was defiant,” according to an article in The Australian.

The father asked the court to intervene when his children chose to walk home to their mother’s house rather than meet him for a scheduled after-school visit. The 43-year-old dad later received a call from his ex who told him the boys, aged 11 and 12, “did not wish to go with them,” according to the article.

The problem is “very prevalent” among American fathers as well,Mitchell K. Karpf, chair of the American Bar Association’s Family Law section, told ParentDish.

Judges here have the power to enact similar rulings after a divorce, he said.

“Mom does have an obligation to say you’re going to see your dad and if you don’t you’re grounded,” said Karpf, who practices in Florida.

Judges also can take parents to task for badmouthing former spouses or preventing visitation.

A Florida court once ordered a mother to tell her children that it was “her desire” that they see and love their father, Karpf said. Encouraging children to maintain relationships with both parents makes sense, according to the American Psychological Association. Children in joint custody arrangements have fewer behavior issues, do better in school and have higher self esteem, according to a 2002 study published in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Claudine Dombrowski Case No. 96-D-217 Shawnee County Courts Topeka, KS - 15 years later - and still All Human Rights - Continue to be Violated.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56hJxkI2Ubk]

Claudine Dombrowski Case No. 96-D-217 Shawnee County Courts Topeka, KS
15 years later- and still all human rights- continue to be violated.
Battered Mothers -Battered children and Child Custody.
access to justice denied.
Criminals are rewarded.
Court Ordered Abuse. Judicial Corruption, Court whores who profit.
http://www.AngelFury.org

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22claudine+dombrowski%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#q=%22claudine+dombrowski%22&hl=en&lr=&prmd=ivnslo&ei=PoyQTY2eHcSC0QHxuqycCw&start=30&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=91f35080109ff7ec

Court Appointed Child Abuser- M. Jill Dykes, GAL Topeka Kansas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaOwVPugJ5Q]

Court Appointed Child Abuser M. Jill Dykes, Topeka Kansas.
A Bottom feeder Guardian ad Litem profiting by protecting the abusers and spilling the blood legally of his victims. In this case a mother and her daughter have been denied contact in over 8 years because of M. Jill Dykes- lying to the courts ignoring her real client the child-
http://whoresofthecourt.com/
CHILDREN AGAINST COURT APPOINTED CHILD ABUSERS
http://ca3cacaca.blogspot.com/

Shawnee County, Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse of Battered Mother

Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake
Manhattan Free Press

MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child's coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson's wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child's coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can't be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal's report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."

Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."

And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine's attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."
Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitude changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor's reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."

When asked about Mr. Richardson's criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women's Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.
In Judge Buchele's Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible.

Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski's unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties.”

The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.
And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff's Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receives help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele's previous orders.

Even the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

Claudine Dombrowski: A Battered Mother Victimized Again by the Kansas Courts. Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski. Truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Testimony by Claudine Dombrowski at the hearing of the Kansas Joint Committee on Children's Issues on Nov 30, 2009 in Topeka about problems with child placement and removal.

Listen Now:

http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/mf/play/tf9pgd/Child-Issues-10-Claudine-Dombrowski.mp3&autoStart=no
Podcast Powered By Podbean

Standard Podcasts: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player

Compelling stories from parents and grandparents about problems with placement and removal of children

By Earl Glynn On December 4, 2009

See this video: Claudine Dombrowski Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

Claudine Dombrowski

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Read details in written statement.

This is an truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Parts of the Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski, who was an abused mom.

Instead of quotes from the audio, please consult these pages that document Dombrowski’s long and difficult battle to protect her daughter:

• Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

• Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
• Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.

State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”

“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”

Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”

Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”

Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”

Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”

Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”

Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”

Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …

“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “

“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.” “… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”

Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”

Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“

Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”

“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”

State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”

Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”

For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”

“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …

“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”

“I commend you for what you’re doing.”

Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”

See this video:  Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

Listen to Claudine Dombrowski:

http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/2009/12/04/claudine-dombrowski-an-abused-mom-victimized-again-by-the-kansas-courts/

Domestic violence is on the rise in Shawnee County, Kansas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBmHK9-inoI]

http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct... By Jessica Drew

Interview with Claudine Dombrowski and Shawnee County, Kansas District Attorney Chad Taylor.
http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct/20/domestic_violence_rise_shawnee_county/

"I remember curling up in a ball to protect her from the kicks," domestic violence survivor, Claudine Dombrowski, described.

Claudine Dombrowski is a survivor to domestic violence, a cycle she went back to many times. "I had a choice I could see my daughter or I could never see her again. The abuser had complete control, so I got my daughter back and went back to him."

Going back to an abusive relationship is a problem District Attorney Chad Taylor said his office sees quite often. "We see it everyday, and it's just a matter of the psychology of the cycle of abuse," Taylor said.

The number of cases coming across Taylor's desk is growing. "Our year to date projections for 2009 total is going to be an increase of about 80 percent for the domestic battery cases that we filed," Taylor said.

Claudine fights to help women like herself who have fallen in the hands of abuse. "This was the crow bar, and then I was beaten and raped," Dombrowski said.

She said she never reported her beatings until after her daughter was born.

Taylor said it happens often, "It goes from bruises to hospitalization, to like we said this is all about homicide prevention."

Claudine said even if you haven't been a victim, you probably know someone who has and you can help them. "Don't think it's you...get rid of the scarlet letter of shame, it's the most important thing."

Taylor wants to show there's help out there for victims. "Making this a priority and letting people know that this will not be tolerated in our community," Taylor said.

Taylor's office gave us statisitics on Domestic Violence in 2008 the DA's office received 1267 cases, out of those 508 were filed. Starting from January 1st until October 16, 2009 there have been 1347 cases received, and out of those 849 cases have been filed.

One Domestic Battery charges, in 2008 there were 723 received and 246 filed for court. The projections for this year are 784 received and 443 filed, meaning an eighty percent increase on Domestic Battery.

Equality with a Vengeance Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash

http://www.upne.com/1-55553-738-3.html

Click for larger image

Equality with a Vengeance
Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash
Molly Dragiewicz
Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and Law
Northeastern University Press
2011 • 168 pp. 2 illus. 5 1/2 x 8 1/2"
Women's Studies / Law

$26.00 Paper, 978-1-55553-739-5
$85.00 Cloth, 978-1-55553-738-8

(Cloth edition is un-jacketed.
Cover illustration is for paperback edition only)

---

A provocative investigation of how fathers’ rights groups are trying to erode the gains of the battered women’s movement

This book investigates efforts by fathers’ rights groups to undermine battered women’s shelters and services, in the context of the backlash against feminism. Dragiewicz examines the lawsuit Booth v. Hvass, in which fathers’ rights groups attempted to use an Equal Protection claim to argue that funding emergency services that target battered women is discriminatory against men. As Dragiewicz shows, this case (which was eventually dismissed) is relevant to widespread efforts to promote a degendered understanding of violence against women in order to eradicate policies and programs that were designed to ameliorate harm to battered women.

Endorsements:

“Equality with a Vengeance is a clear and convincing, finely contextualized account of violence against women and the multifaceted sources that help to understand its origin, pervasiveness and persistence. Dragewicz’s work stands to combat the resurgence of myths about interpersonal violence promulgated by anti-feminist fathers’ rights groups.”
—Susan Caringella, Professor, Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice Program, Western Michigan University

“This book is a major contribution to the field of domestic violence, as no one else is writing about the lawsuits being filed by men's rights groups around the U.S. whose purpose is to defund shelters for battered women. Dragiewicz analyzes the first of these suits in depth, explaining why the arguments made by the plaintiffs are wrong legally, and demonstrating the ways that these arguments mirror typical statements by batterers.”—Nancy K. D. Lemon, Lecturer, Berkeley School of Law, UC Berkeley

Click here for TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOLLY DRAGIEWICZ is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

Dr. Sharon K. Araji Talks about Domestic Violence in Contested Child Custody

This 28 minute Documentary explains how Abusers use the Court System to continue to abuse the mother for leaving, by taking her children.

Guardian ad Litems, Mental Health Professionals, Supervised Visits, Fathers Rights --

All make money by keeping the battered mother away from her children and by giving the children to the documented batterer.

These are crimes and in Family Court they are dismissed and turned into profit for the above so called ‘experts’.

Child trafficking is legal in Family Courts.

Run Mommy, Run, Their is no justice--- ‘JUST US’ perps-—batterers, GALs, MHPs, Custody Evaluators, High Conflict experts, Supervised Visitation, mediation… the list goes on and on.

The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System

by Charles Pragnell

 

n the twenty years I have been advising parents, children, and their legal advisers in several hundred cases in Family Law matters, I have often been asked, “Why is it that children are so often ordered to have contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who have abused them and have perpetrated violence against their partners.”

The answer to this question is not simple and involves an examination of the requirements of Family Laws which stress the importance of children having both parents in their lives after parental separation, the dynamics of legal processes, and the often very clear gender biases of the principals involved in judicial processes.

But one of the most outstanding and consistent features of proceedings involving the care of children post-separation are the conduct and behaviours which can be identified as clearly fitting the definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy.

The major personality traits of the psychopath are supremacy and narcissism. The afflicted individual must be in complete control of their environment and all persons who are a part of that environment or can serve the psychopath’s purposes in maintaining control.

The psychopath is capable of using both aggressive anger and passive anger with cunning and guile, to achieve their goals of exerting control. Examples of such contrary behaviours are the aggressive violence against intimate partners, with the frequent inherent abuse of children, designed to groom friends, relatives, and professionals into believing they are harmless and indeed very stable and friendly. If thwarted in attaining these goals, however, the passive can quickly turn into the aggressive.

In furtherance of these traits, the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:

1. denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;
2. refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;
3. minimisation of the incident and consequences;
4. blame being placed on others;
5. misrepresentation, fabrication, embellishment and distortion of information and evidence;
6. minimisation of all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;
7. claims of victim status, alleging the victim was the aggressor;
8. projection of their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.

The grooming of friends, relatives, and professionals is very clear in many cases, and in particular some psychiatrists, psychologists and family evaluators/reporters have been hoodwinked by such tactics and ploys by the psychopathic individual. Their reports, of course favouring the psychopath, have very considerable influence on the Courts and their determinations. Very often clear evidence of intimate partner violence such as convictions, Domestic Violence Orders, Apprehended Violence Orders and Restraining Orders against the psychopathic aggressor and medical evidence of injuries suffered by the adult and child victims are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by such professionals.

Such professionals now refer to such cases as `high conflict’ cases, when it is clear that they are situations of a violent aggressor/tormentor/persecutor and their victims. It is easy to see how the cases in Austria and America where young girls were imprisoned for many years by controlling individuals and regularly abused in several ways were undetected, when the aggressors/persecutors/tormentors were able to convince their family members, relatives and associates that they were reasonable, normal people. The same often occurs in other cases of violence and murder where neighbours report that the accused murderer is a nice and friendly neighbour. They do not recognise the Jekyll and Hyde aspects of the psychopath’s ploys and tactics and of those they have effectively groomed in their beliefs.

The high conflict which usually occurs in such cases is most commonly engendered by the respective lawyers, conditioned by operating in an adversarial process and arena, whose own major goal is to ‘win’, whatever may be the justness and fairness of the result.

It is not difficult to see, therefore, how the psychopath is able to readily gain the sympathy and support of some of the professionals engaged in the Family Law system and for them to abandon and forfeit their professional objectivity and impartiality in such circumstances. In blaming others the psychopath will allege the former partner is mentally ill and in some cases the former partner may be suffering a Complex Post Traumatic Disorder after suffering years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse and violence. This is often misinterpreted and misdiagnosed as a Borderline Personality Disorder or similar psychiatric term. In effect it is a classic ‘blame the victim’ scenario.

The groomed professionals then enable the psychopath to achieve their primary objective, which is to maintain power and control over their victims, their former partner and children. It is an act of vengeance and spite but mostly it is to maintain the power and control and feelings of supremacism and narcissism. “I am faultless and flawless and in control of my whole environment” are the unvoiced cravings of the psychopath, and “I can continue to inflict my tortures on my victims with impunity” are the psychopath’s continuing behaviours.

The Family Law and their shared parenting provisions and its administration by the Family Courts have become ready enablers for the psychopath.

Charles Pragnell is an Independent Advocate for Children and Families.

Mother bringing abuse case to Supreme Court (Daytona Beach, Florida)

If your organization is able to supply an amicus brief in support of this mother, please do. Although I've read about many outrageous miscarriages of justice when it comes to custody/visitation issues, Linda Marie Sacks' case is clearly one of the more outrageous.

Mother bringing case to US Supreme Court/ Constitutional Violations/ Rights of Mothers/Linda Marie Sacks

Human Rights Violations Rampant in the Family Courts of America

Questions Presented are of National Importance to America’s Children

March 3, 2011

Amicus Brief Requests

On May 6, 2011 the Friday before Mother's Day, Linda Marie Sacks will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. After years of legal hearings, this mother's only legal option is to ask our highest court to hear why she is concerned about her daughters' safety and should not be on court-ordered supervised visitation seeing her children for only two hours each month, for the last 4 years.

Family court judges should not end or severely restrict parent-child relationships because a parent fears their child is being abused. In Linda Marie's case, she was not the only adult concerned that her daughter was sexually acting out. The court had written documents from a Sunday School volunteer who overheard the then 8-year-old say she sucks her father's penis and reports of suspected child abuse from a therapist who watched as the girl drew the family picture below depicting her father as an erect penis with legs.

Justice for Children, a national organization that advocates for children when “official avenues” have failed to protect them, wrote a letter to the investigating agencies outlining concerns that the allegations of sexual child abuse were not properly investigated.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, few petitions are granted certiorari but the chances increase when multiple Amicus Briefs are filed with the petition. If your organization can help with gathering Amicus Briefs for this case that would be greatly appreciated. The questions to be presented are:

1. If a parent makes a good faith allegation of abuse, with documented evidence,

in an effort to protect her children, should that parent be deprived of physical

custody of her children, or have their contact supervised, indefinitely without a

case plan, or reunification plan provided by the trial court?

2. Does a state court violate the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when it

deprives a parent of physical custody, and limits that parents contact to Supervised

Visitation with her children, for taking the reasonable action based upon a belief,

supported by facts that her children need protection from abuse?

3. Does a state court’s custody decision that deprives a parent of access to her

children indefinitely, unless supervised, without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, which effectively terminates a party’s parental rights,

violate the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments?

It is difficult to get a case to this point in our legal system. All other avenues must be exhausted which requires years of hearings and a substantial financial burden. This is a chance to tell our highest court that parents should not be punished for trying to protect their children.

Below is a legal summary of the case concerning the constitutional issues being appealed.

1) A finding that the mother's due process rights were violated and the custody was reversed

In May 2007, Mother, Linda Marie Sacks, appealed the decision of Judge Shawn L. Briese. The Fifth District Court of Appeals on 8/08 (Case 5D07-1682) in Daytona Beach, Florida issued a written opinion and REVERSED AND REMANDED the decision of custody of R.S. and S.S, back to the lower court. In the opinion it noted that Mothers due process rights were violated, and the hearing to determine custody should never have taken place, and when it did it violated Mothers constitutional rights. 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)

2) The Fifth District denied a request to prohibit Judge Briese from again being the presiding judge

Immediately after the 8/ 08 REVERSAL AND REMAND in 1st appeal, a Writ of Prohibition,(Case 5D08-3668) was filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The writ requested that Judge Shawn L. Briese be prohibited from being allowed to be the presiding judge on this case any further. The writ showed documented evidence of judicial misconduct, violations of judicial canon #3, violations of Fl Ad Code 2.330 and ex parte communications by the judge and the 2 attorneys of record for the former Husband. On 11/13/08 it was denied, without a written opinion or citation……just DENIED and thus it sent this Mother right back to Judge Shawn L. Briese for the retrial., the same Judge who violated her due process rights, as he refused to be disqualified, and he demanded to have her case back on his docket.

3) Judge Briese again violated the mother's due process rights

In the Retrial of Custody in April 2009, Father's two attorney firms did not present a case but simply rested when their turn to present arrived. Judge Briese issued his oral ruling in June 2009 and gave Father, Sole physical custody and continued to place Mother on Supervised visitation because she did a TV interview with Chan 9 News in Albany New York, at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, and didn’t buy greeting card for the father while on Supervised visitation...so refused to allow Mother any contact with her children UNLESS supervised at the local visitation center. Judge Briese, once again, ignored, suppressed and dismissed documented evidence of abuse to the minor children by the father…..and kept Mother on Supervised Visitation.

Mother filed a pro se appeal and in her Amended Brief of Appellant p.48 it says:

“Due process requires that the ruling from the trial court support its conclusions by clear and convincing evidence. Trial court “abuses its discretion” with respect to a child custody determination only when a reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Would any reasonable person agree with the trial court’s ruling that the primary custody of the minor children R.S. and S.S. should be with the father and the mother should only have supervised visitation? The court is bound to by law to apply the test that if no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriateness of the trial court’s ruling then the ruling must not stand. As a reminder, this court already found the mother’s due process rights were violated when her children were taken away in April of 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). When the trial court gave the oral ruling on June 26, 2009 regarding the “Retrial of Custody of Children” it disregarded documented abuse. It is clear that this was a blatant disregard of abuse and evidence was suppressed, dismissed and ignored. This strongly suggests bias, discrimination in making the decision regarding the custody of R.S. and S.S.”

4) Constitutional Issues were also raised

Amended Brief of Appellant p. 4 states:

“The fundamental constitutional equal right of a loving, caring Mother is to be able to raise and nurture their children. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. In Bevil v. Carson 966 So. 2nd 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), in reviewing a custody determination the appellate court considers whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the factual finding by the trial court and whether its in the best interests of the children. Id.

If substantial evidence does not support the factual finds then the court abused its discretion, Fuller v. Fuller 13 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). A parent has a constitutionally protected inherent right to a meaningful relationship with his or her children, and must be treated equally under all of the 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. (Exhibit B) There is no reason to excuse the judiciary participating in depriving the parents of the care and custody and time with their children, and sadly, in this case mother and R.S. and S.S have only had 68 hours of contact at the Supervised Visitation center.

The record is clear, Linda Sacks is a loving , caring, devoted Mother who was concerned for the safety and well being of her children and tried to protect them, and in doing so was placed on supervised visitation unjustly.”

Constitutional rights of a parent were also in other parts of the briefs as well. Abuse of Discretion issues were also raised, as well as the “best interest of children.”

Abuse of discretion was raised as it is the Standard of Review. The standard of review for the trial courts finding and determination regarding primary parental responsibility is abuse of discretion. The trial court finds regarding the best interests of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Also stated:

The trial court abused its discretion by not terminating the supervised visitation imposed on Linda Sacks and compounded that error by refusing to allow contact unless it was supervised, and knowing their was no detriment to the children, and no evidence to support the trial courts ruling on custody of Linda sacks, Appellant’s Minor children, R.S. and S.S

The trial court abused its discretion when substantial competent evidence does not support the erroneous findings of the trial court in the final judgment of the retrial of custody of children.

The trial on April 24 and 28, 2009 on the retrial of Custody of children and the evidence presented does not support the oral ruling or written final judgment showing clear bias and prejudice and abuse of trial discretion.

The Court compounded that error in granting primary residential responsibility and sole physical custody to the father and supervised visitation to mother once again.

In the briefs these arguments were supported by the record and case law to support the argument.

A transcript from the Retrial in April 2009, was submitted showing the father admitting on the stand to verbal abusing the mother in front of the children, to an altercation in the kitchen of the family home with R.S. at 8 years old that resulted in this child getting a split lip and blood, to wiping down the vaginas of R.S. and S.S. (school age children), to being in the bathroom again with S.S. as she was naked in the tub, with him having her stand on one leg, with her other leg in the air, after just being told by a licensed psychologist to STAY out of the bathroom, and on the way home from that very office, came in the house with S.S. and did it again…within minutes of arriving home.

All of these admissions collaborated the Dept and Children Child Abuse Hotline Calls the police reports and Mothers Domestic Violence Injunction of Protection. But Judge Briese dismissed all and said in his oral ruling on June 26, 2009, and this is included in the Appeal briefs (Reply Brief of Appellant p. 6 and 7) states:

Judge Briese states: “He testified that nothing, ever inappropriate happened, sexually or physically, and the court finds it to be the case, as it did the first time.(R. Vol. 2. T. p. 189, 1. 18-20)

This is an erroneous finding by the trial court, and in Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2nd 581 (Fla 4th DCA, 1999) the appeals court noted that there were numerous inconsistencies between the Final Judgment and fact as presented in the Final hearing and this was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.

Thank you for taking the time to review this summary. Should you need copies of any documents, simply ask and they will be provided to you quickly. Linda Marie Sacks raised these issues in her court case and the appeal to preserve the issues on appeal to go to the US Supreme Court for the Cert Petition, and has preserved the trial record as she has $17,000 worth of trial transcripts.

For Information on Amicus Briefs

Please contact:

Linda Marie Sacks

386-453-3017

lindamariesacks@aol.com

For Press

Please contact:

Kathleen Russell

Executive Director

Center for Judicial Excellence

495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

Mothers Losing Custody to Abusers: Sexist Bias & Power in Family Court on WBAI Radio 99.5 FM-- Wednesday, March 16, 9-10 pm

PLEASE POST WIDELY

On Wednesday, March 16, 9-10 pm, Joy of Resistance will present Mothers Losing Custody to Abusers: Sexist Bias & Power in Family Court on WBAI Radio @ 99.5 FM and streaming live on the web @ www.wbai.org

Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI is proud to welcome a group of courageous activists, lawyers, psychologists and embattled mothers to its airwaves.

Guests on this important show will be: Nancy Erickson, 40-year Custody Lawyer; Barry Goldstein, member: National Organization for Men Against Sexism, co-author (along w/Mo Hannah) of Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody; Mo Therese Hannah, Psychologist, founder of the Battered Mother's Custody Conference--as well as some of the mothers who are fighting for custody.

The show will include Feminist News & listener call-ins at (212) 209-2900.

Contrary to myths promoted  by Fathers' Rights Groups, it is mothers who who face an uphill battle in custody fights with fathers.

Men who fight for custody will win it 75% of the time; they can afford better lawyers and they can play on a  host of sexist prejudices against women that are rife in Family Court (and all of society) and which include:

• women are widely assumed to make false allegations, women are assumed to be trying to alienate children from their fathers,
• women are assumed to be emotionally unstable and to suffer from a range of psychiatric conditions.
• While "Father's Rights" groups promote the line that mothers engaged in custody battles are vindictive liars, the truth is--as studies show--that only 1-2% of DV allegations are false--about the same as in any other crime situation.

It is estimated the in up to 90% of such custody battles there has been a situation of domestic violence. Yet--if a woman as much as mentions the abuse that she or her children have experienced at the hands of the father, she is very likely to lose her her custody rights because she will immediately be under suspicion of demonstrating "Parental Alienation", i.e., "attemtping to alienate the children from their father". She may also be called an "unfriendly parent".

One mother--who will testify on the program--had it held against her that, when giving birth to her child, she didn't want the father--who had hit her during her pregnancy--in the room. She lost custody.

Estimates are the 58,000 children a year wind up in the custody of abusers. And 100 children a year are murdered as a result of these Court decisions.

Court appointed Custody Evaluators have little or no training. They often unquestioningly follow the popular assumption that "children do best when they have two parents." But what should be the second clause of that sentence is left out: that "this is only the case when neither parent is an abuser."

Father's Rights Groups have gotten terrible legislation passed and alot of judges and lawyers are sympathetic to them or are members of these groups themselves. They know that it is the fathers who have the money, so they want to represent THEM. The women have a harder time paying for good lawyers.

These are just a few of the reasons why Family Court is a disaster for mothers. We are proud to be opening up this issue on Joy of Resistance and showing the situation from the mothers' point of view. The show will include a Feminist News Wrap-up & listener call-ins at (212) 209-2900 in the last part of the show.

So please tune in to 99.5 FM this Wednesday, March 16, between 9 and 10 PM--or stream us live on your computer at www.wbai.org. 

Joy of Resistance covers the ongoing worldwide struggle of women to for full equality and human rights. It broadcasts on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month, between 9 and 10 PM. You can contact Joy of Resistance at joyofresistance@wbai.org or leave a phone message at (212) 209-2987.

WBAI is listener supported, non commercial radio broadcasting to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It is part of the Pacifica Radio Network. WBAI is in a financial crisis and badly needs your financial support to continue broadcasting an alternative to the corporate media.

Please consider going to www.wbai.org and contributing whatever amount you can to help keep alternative radio alive. Thank you.

Fran Luck,

Executive Producer,

Joy of Resistance: Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAI,

99.5 FM, NYC, 1st and 3rd Wednesdays, 9-10 pm

(broadcasting to New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

& worldwide on the web)

Welcome to the Law Offices of Bud Dale

http://www.buddalelaw.com/

IntroductionAttorney ProfileChild's Best Interests"Stories" & "Interests"Contact Us

 

Hi!  I'm Bud.  Welcome to the Law Offices of Bud Dale website!  The Law Offices of Bud Dale emphasize finding child-focused and family-focused solutions in family law cases. After more than twenty years as a psychologist, I studied law in order to make a difference in the lives of children and families involved in the legal system.  I graduated from Washburn University School of Law, earning certificates in family law (with distinction) and advocacy. I learned a lot.  Let me put what I know about the law, children and families to work for you in your family law case.  Whether it is a divorce or separation, a parenting time or visitation dispute, an adoption, or something else regarding the best interests of your child, I can help.

Courtrooms and other parts of any legal process can be scary, but they don't have to be.  Most family law cases are settled outside of court in ways that allow you to make choices and maximize your input in any outcome. Anxieties about the future, concerns about your children, and fears about finances and property are just a few of the challenges you may face. With my legal clients, I am an educator about the law and see my value as intimately connected to my ability to explain the law as applied to your situation.  You are in charge of your case.  As your attorney, I'll be there to see to it that your choices are well-informed and, if necessary, to vigorously defend them. 

I'm glad you found my website.  Take a look around my site and others.  Compare.  Be discriminating and think critically.  Look for an attorney who will listen.  Look for an attorney who will explain.  And, if you think I might be the right attorney for you and your case, call and set up a consultation.  The initial consultation is free.   Call.  Let's talk.   Bud

This website is a resource for the clients and friends of The Law Offices of Bud Dale.  Nothing contained in this site creates an attorney-client relationship with anyone.  For a Consultation, call our offices at 785-267-0025 or contact us via email at buddalelaw@aol.com.

 

In Bud Dale’s OWN WORDS Courtesy of TheLizLibrary Psychology in Family Court

 

 

CUSTODY EVALUATORS
AND  PARENTING COORDINATORS
IN THEIR OWN WORDS

A Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

by Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

9. For example, the below commenting MHP — who has been a parenting coordinator (“case manager”) on at least one case known to the author in which a severely battered woman lost custody of her daughter to the abusive father,and who regularly performs custody evaluations as well — appears oblivious to the impact of MHP fees (which typically are divided equally between the parents) on a parent with substantially lower income than the other:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “If you want the parents to cooperate, why not add a provision that they must go back to mediation or to a parent coordinator if they cannot come to an agreement. As long as the mediator or parent coordinator changes a reasonable fee, the financial incentives for the parents to cooperate is maintained (assuming each wants to avoid paying a mediator or parent coordinator) and there is a solution for persistent disagreements that is fair…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, October 24, 2005).

More examples:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…I never said that financial issues aren’t relevant – of course there are parents who use their children for financial gain. What I said was that I’m not qualified to examine a parent’s tax returns…” (California doctorate-level MHP, November 24, 2005).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…issues of child support are totally separate from custody and parenting time determinations. Yet in one case… the attorney continually referenced the fact that I was ‘failing to consider and give weight’ to the fact that the father was $20,000 behind in child support… Fortunately, my appointment letter addressed that my role was separate from the financial issues… Indeed, I had not failed to give weight to the financial issues. I had totally ignored and disregarded them all along – because that’s what I was required to do by law. Some attorneys will attempt to backdoor this issue; that is, they will claim that the child support arrearage represents a character flaw or defect – which might or might not be true. By the way, researching the literature about how fathers get so behind in child support yields some interesting claims on both sides of the issue.” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 12, 2006).

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…issues of child support are totally separate from custody and parenting time determinations. Yet in one case… the attorney continually referenced the fact that I was ‘failing to consider and give weight’ to the fact that the father was $20,000 behind in child support… Fortunately, my appointment letter addressed that my role was separate from the financial issues… Indeed, I had not failed to give weight to the financial issues. I had totally ignored and disregarded them all along – because that’s what I was required to do by law. Some attorneys will attempt to backdoor this issue; that is, they will claim that the child support arrearage represents a character flaw or defect – which might or might not be true. By the way, researching the literature about how fathers get so behind in child support yields some interesting claims on both sides of the issue.” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 12, 2006).

72.The reason for this has been decades of MHP lobbying and propagandizing to the legislatures and legal community.

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE CALL TO ARMS]: “There is a new bill in the California state legislature which will be of some interest and concern to all of us who do custody evaluations, especially California psychologists. The bill prohibits the use of psychological testing in custody evaluations unless the court grants “a motion for a mental or psychological examination of a parent only for good cause shown…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…The legislator is sponsoring this bill on behalf of women’s rights groups, who think that parental alienation is diagnosed too frequently through the use of psychological testing…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “This bill appears to prohibit considerably more than psych testing… “Controversial, nonscientific labels, such as parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation, or alienated child, are specifically excluded as allowable diagnoses and for court use.” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I am responding from a strategic and tactical point of view. In addition to being a forensic psychologist, doing CCE, I am also legislative chair of the Florida Psychological Association. In my experience…” (Florida doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I’ll go ahead and forward this to her if that’s ok with you.  the annual Legislative and Advocacy day is coming up mid-March, altho I’m guessing they’ve already selected the legislation they want psychologists to discuss with legislators… do you know how far along this bill is in the legislative process… I think CPA’s stand in general is to strongly oppose any bill that limits psychologists’ scope of practice…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “Perhaps a letter from those of us who write and teach about use of psychological tests in CCEs might be useful?…” (North Carolina doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I agree also and think a letter from professionals that know testing is a great idea.  It seems that if the legislature wants to “do something”  perhaps advocating for  required continuing education of so many hours in order to allow people to use the tests…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).

115. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/index.html#myths-and-facts

116. As is usually recognized by the MHP, e.g. Pickar, supra, note 66b, but only when convenient or desired. Compare the following. The first two commentators are uninterested in acknowledging past financial issues that have wreaked family havoc, and arguably bear on character as well as explain motives and feelings of the parties; the third is interested in supporting a father’s request to relocate, and so believes that it is within his province to gather and analyze data about prospective financial matters:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “Tax returns?? Simple issues like one parent claimed 4 kids and there are only two, I can probably figure that out and that speaks to honesty and maybe tracking reality. But I agree that we should not be analyzing tax issues. If it is that complex I can’t think how that would be relevant to custody/parenting issues. If it is, both parent provide information and you hire a tax consultant to review it. I can’t imagine what could be relevant… I have a case right now where there are federal indictments on one parent to the tune of over 1/2 millions and all kinds of issues around money. Very little of it is relevant (except possible prison and honesty) and the other parent wants to make it all relevant. She brought me a notebook of financial records. That’s about her anger about the money – which is relevant to know how angry she is at dad and how that affects her children.” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, November 23, 2005).

124. For an example of how background might influence the MHP’s investigation, perceptions and conclusions, see Lisa D. Cromer & Jennifer J. Freyd, What Influences Believing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history, and sexism, 31 Psych. Women Q. 1 (2007). From the abstract: “Men believed abuse reports less than did women, and people who had not experienced trauma were less likely to believe trauma reports. Gender and personal history interacted such that trauma history did not impact women’s judgments but did impact men’s judgments. Men with a trauma history responded similarly to women with or without a trauma history. High sexism predicted lower judgments of an event being abusive. Hostile sexism was negatively correlated with believing abuse disclosures.” The study at the University of Oregon found that “young men who have never been traumatized are the least likely population to believe a person’s recounting of child sexual abuse.” (News release, Believing child sexual abuse claims, U. Or. Univ. News, February 13, 2007, at http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=2.13.07-disbelievers.html)

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE PRECURSOR]: “I just haven’t noticed higher abilities in hypothesis testing among psychologists or other mental health professionals. I realize that you have to take a couple of courses in research and statistics to get a graduate degree (in most fields). It doesn’t seem to translate into skills in decision-making across the board. E.g. the recent thread on the Kansas custody evaluation and Virginia side trip. Some very off thinking and relevant point missing.
One might take arguments similar to that you have made and point out that psychologists just aren’t trained as investigators when it comes to obtaining information outside of psychological data (police officers are better.) And that lawyers are better trained at issue spotting and weighing information. And that judges have more experience decision-making.
I also point out that mental health training does not provide actual information and experience relevant to many of the issues that ought to be considered in a custody determination. For example, the financial aspects. For example, educational opportunities. For example, what it’s like to actually be a parent with day-in and day-out responsibility for children, how the home is run, the pragmatics of life. An unwed childless 28-year-old Ph.D. just out of school probably hasn’t a clue — and I for one see this lack influencing unworkable recommendations.
I also point out that skill in testing and coming up with psychological diagnoses does not qualify anyone ipso facto to translate that into parenting ability or even to understand with what kind of or which parent a child’s best interests is most likely to be fostered. There is very little translating dsm diagnoses into parenting abilities and child outcomes, especially when neither parent is perfect and foibles and personality defects have to be weighed…” (liz, May 2, 2005).

124. For an example of how background might influence the MHP’s investigation, perceptions and conclusions, see Lisa D. Cromer & Jennifer J. Freyd, What Influences Believing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history, and sexism, 31 Psych. Women Q. 1 (2007). From the abstract: “Men believed abuse reports less than did women, and people who had not experienced trauma were less likely to believe trauma reports. Gender and personal history interacted such that trauma history did not impact women’s judgments but did impact men’s judgments. Men with a trauma history responded similarly to women with or without a trauma history. High sexism predicted lower judgments of an event being abusive. Hostile sexism was negatively correlated with believing abuse disclosures.” The study at the University of Oregon found that “young men who have never been traumatized are the least likely population to believe a person’s recounting of child sexual abuse.” (News release, Believing child sexual abuse claims, U. Or. Univ. News, February 13, 2007, at http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=2.13.07-disbelievers.html)

125. [ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE QUERY]: “My 8 year old son is complaining a lot about being bored in school, to the point it seems to be affecting his overall happiness… I experienced similar problems throughout elementary and high school.. Will talk with the school but am seeking ideas to help him cope…” (Doctorate-level MHP father, April 21, 2005).

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “While such “purity balls” are not something that I and my daughters (ages 14 and 12 next week) have ever or would ever participate in, I can indeed tell you that as a father I feel a desire to help protect my daughters from predators and even poor choices on their part.” (Idaho doctorate-level MHP father, April 19, 2006).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I asked my stepdaughter what stores my granddaughter likes… One of the stores she mentioned was Victoria’s Secret. Why would a high school junior want to buy anything in Victoria’s secret? Has it changed in terms of what it sells? I know they all like to dress like streetwalkers, but this is ridiculous.” (Minnesota masters-level MHP mother, February 28, 2005).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “School is important for kids… why not look and take the time to get good data from people who see them more than we do? And who see them sometimes more than their parents do. I’m going to stop now and call my son’s school. Seems there is an academic counselor… who is helping my son with sending emails to college soccer coaches. She’s helping my son and deserves my support… the students at school call this counselor, “Momma.” And I know why. Aren’t some kids just luckier than others?” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP father, May 10, 2005).

…When There Still Isn’t Enough Work, Doing Trainings for Everyone (especially those that push make-work ideas) and Reviewing Other MHPs

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I do CCEs and I function as a court-appointed “Case Manager” in Kansas. Kansas calls parent coordinators “Case Managers” to avoid confusion – lol. I have also twice attended AFCC sponsored training on parent coordination. The Colorado group (Christie Coates, Robert LaCrosse, And Betsy Duvall) did a 2 day training in St. Louis in November, 2003, and Joan Kelly did a 2 day training in Chicago in June 2004. Both of these training programs emphasize the “Divorce Impasse” Model that Janet Johnston put together. This is a model that I find helps in CCEs and parent coordination/case management. The second AFCC task force has just completed its task of developing model standards for parent coordinators (See AFCC website or request backchannel)…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, May 16, 2005).

“Do a Bonding Assessment”

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I do not know of a research based protocol for a ‘bonding assessment.’ It seems the folks that do them around here do an observation of touching, smiling, eye contact, warm interactions etc which are good and important and look at basic needs and are they met. I was wondering if there are protocols that are considered ‘standard of care’ and or are reseach based.” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, January 14, 2007.)

For more about the GREAT Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale please visit the following links.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html

http://washburnlaw.edu/news/2009/2009-03cflc-horizons.php