The Fathers Rights Movement Naked

Arguments made by custody evaluators for not complying with discovery. Why their arguments are wrong.

By Elizabeth J. Kates, Esq.

I cannot release these materials because am ethically required by the APA "to make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of tests and other assessment techniques consistent with law, contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits compliance with the APA Ethics code" (Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security). The APA Ethics Code, Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html).

Wrong. By its own language, the APA ethics code, an extra-legal code of ethics of a private trade association, requires compliance "consistent with law". In the law, there is a hierarchy of authority. Higher authorities control lesser authorities. At the top is the U.S. Constitution, and the case law interpreting it, recognizing fundamental rights of fairness, due process, and cross-examination. Below that are federal statutes that supersede state laws. Below that come state laws, constitutional, statutory, and case law. Below that come administrative regulations. At the very bottom is the law of private contract, such as the APA regulations -- or the contracts of nonparties who, with advance knowledge of those contracts, voluntarily, and for profit, have injected themselves, their data, and the purported conflict of interest they create into other persons' issues and litigation. That was "purported conflict". There actually is no "conflict". Lower authorities that refer to exceptions "otherwise required by law" are indicating that they must be interpreted consistent with that higher legal authority, and that their mandates are subordinate to it. Thus, it is neither "reasonable" nor "consistent with law" to posture that a private contract might supersede the requirements of the constitution.Doing so repeatedly, as some psychs do in case after case, speciously pretending to ignorance and confusion, is frivolous, unsupportable, sanctionable conduct.

The APA ethics code is not merely private, because in this case it is incorporated into state law, either statutory, or in the regulations governing psych conduct, so it's also the law. I have to be governed by it. I understand your argument, but I want a court order. I don't want an ethics complaint that I have to defend, even if I ultimately prevail. For this reason, I cannot respond to a subpoena -- even one that is considered to have the force of law, but must [resist discovery and waste other people's time and money to] get a judicial ruling to resolve my [self-created] conflict. The APA ethics language is repeated in multiple states' psychology regulations, e.g. in Florida's Administrative Code 64B19-18.004.

Wrong. The Administrative Code regulating psychology, albeit a step up from private contract, cannot be interpreted by a thinking individual as law that competes with, conflicts with, or modifies higher legal authority or more compelling constitutional rights. The lower authority rules still must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with those constitutional rights and superseding law. In the United States of America, we do not permit Court of Star Chamber proceedings, in which the underlying data upon which expert opinions are based, gets to be kept secret from the litigants. Since that's not an option, there's nothing for a court properly to decide. The claim of having to defend a board complaint is spurious. The likelihood of a board complaint being prompted by response of a forensic witness to a subpoena issued in litigation is less than miniscule. Additionally, if a frivolous board complaint is going to be filed, no court order will prevent it, and it still will have to be defended (easily). Finally, the psych trade lobbies have pushed for all kinds of malpractice immunities to hinder litigants from lodging even valid complaints in connection with family law cases, so the protestation is ridiculous on multiple grounds. (In part, these codes and industry regulation schemes are self-serving trade promotion and protection. For example, see Tana Dineen: "Psychological Illusions: Professionalism and the Abuse of Power" Presented at the Symposium: (Ab)Using Power: The Canadian Experience. Vancouver, B.C. May 8, 1998. A revised version of this paper is available in (Ab)Using Power: The Canadian Experience. Boyd, Susan C., Chunn, Dorothy E. and Menzies, Robert (Eds). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publ. 2001. Available at http://tanadineen.com/writer/writings/index.htm ) See additional discussion below on the Florida code.

The APA Ethical Code prohibits psychologists from distributing test data and other assessment records to people untrained to use them, "to protect a client / patient or others from substantial harm, or misuse, or misinterpretation of the data or the test" (Standard 9.04a)

Wrong. This is a two-part assertion, and both parts are wrong. First, the APA ethics code does not control higher legal authority. If and to the extent it is incorporated into psychology regulations, it still does not control over higher legal authority. And, with regard to the presumed prohibition on delivering this material to litigants and their lawyers, the APA Code does no such thing. See Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?          Second, laying aside that the APA guidelines primarily address clinical practice, there is no research evidence anywhere establishing generally that preventing the release of forensic psychology test data and other assessment records to "people untrained to use them" will protect anyone, or ever has protected anyone, or, conversely, that the release of such records in general has harmed or will harm anyone. While this all sounds plausible, and it is possible creatively to imagine situations in which such harm theoretically could result, it is simply not established as a general rule. (And there is nothing in psych evals that is worse than what comes into the public court records otherwise in these cases.) On the other hand, it is axiomatic in the law that deprivation of due process and the right of cross examination is a fundamental harm. In addition, misuse and misinterpretation of test data by psychs themselves, the lack of validity of many of the tests, the lack of interrater reliability, and high controversy over the efficacy and use of many of these tests also is well-known. See, e.g. Misuse of Psychological Tests in Forensic Settings: Some Horrible Examples Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, available at http://deltabravo.net/custody/misuse.php and http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/special_problems13.htm

The National Academy of Neuropsychology (another professional psychology association) agrees with the APA position, which gives this position even more weight. The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (SEPT) also agree. http://www.nanonline.org/NAN/ResearchPublications/PositionPapers.aspx http://www.apls.org/links/currentforensicguidelines.pdf

Wrong. The psych's attempted "appeal to authority" is an error of both logical reasoning and legal reasoning. The National Academy of Neuropsychology is not a legal authority. The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists is not law, and its authors are not legal authorities. A dozen more me-toos from psych trade organizations would add not a whit of weight. All these arguments stand as evidence that psychs by reason of their training do not know what constitutes legal authority, do not understand or appreciate the justice system, and do not belong in courts of law. See Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators

The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (SEPT) developed jointly by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and The National Council on Measurement in Education, "acknowledge the importance of maintaining test security and ensuring that only those qualified to interpret raw test scores be afforded the opportunity to do so, for the purpose of preventing harm".

Wrong. More appeal to (non)authority. And repeating the speculative assertion of prospective harm does not make it more correct. There is no research evidence anywhere establishing that preventing the release of forensic psychology test data and other assessment records actually protects or ever has protected anyone other than those with an interest in making money from selling or using these instruments.           (To the extent that the trade promotion interests of a third party are in conflict with the fundamental due process rights of the actual litigants in a court case, it should be remembered that the third party voluntarily injected itself into the proceedings, knowing in advance what its interests were, and thus implicitly waived those interests in deference to the litigants' higher interests in due process and fundamental fairness.)

Failure to protect test security from unqualified users harms the integrity of tests because the tests can become invalidated through their placement in the public domain, thus depriving the public of effective test instruments.

Wrong. This argument confounds copyright interests ("public domain"), which are specific persons' and groups' profit-motivated interests, with generalized public harm from, presumably, the public's need to be able to take psych tests.  No research has established that any harm will come to the public if psych testing were not available. While it is plausible as an hypothesis, no evidence establishes this. Indeed, the public managed very well for hundreds of years without psych testing and there is no evidence (unlike in the fields of medicine or dentistry) that the public is better off, more well adjusted, healthier, or happier, because of the availability of psych tests.  The allusion to the copyright issue indicates more truthfully whose and what interests are of concern to the trade organizations and the test publishers. Additionally, the argument raises the question of how it could be that these tests -- if presumably so reliable that they can and should be used in a forensic setting -- could be so lacking in robustness and so easily corrupted that they would no longer be useful if a member of the public, determined to respond honestly in order to obtain therapy, happened to see the test materials at some prior time because the materials were in a court file, instead of a college library, where any undergraduate psych major might peruse them.  The argument begs the question of what all the people who DO have knowledge of these tests do if these tests are presumably so needed by the public. Don't psychologists ever require therapy? How about other mental health professionals, school personnel, test publisher employees, researchers, judges and lawyers who deal with forensic experts, and every person who at some point in the past already took one of the tests? The argument is nonsense. The real interest at stake, the real motive for the forensic psych's recalcitrance, has nothing to do with concern for public welfare (and very likely not even so much concern for complying with test publishers' admonitions as interest in protecting the individual psych from scrutiny). (Also note the difference from the standpoint of a test taker between a test administered in a forensic setting and one administered for the purpose of receiving therapy.)

For example, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) would be invalid if the answers to the LSAT were released and placed in the public domain.  Similarly, psychological tests cannot be made public without invalidating the tests, just as examinations are invalid if the questions are published in advance.

Wrong. The LSAT and other similar standardized tests are not analogous. First, they have sufficient validity that test questions can be changed from administration to administration without devastating the test. In other words, they are real tests, testing real things, with actual right and wrong answers. Second, the test protocols, scoring methods, past test questions, and practice questions routinely are distributed by the test publishers to future test takers, with no great hue and cry about public harm occurring because some people practice for them and others do not. And, even if the exact questions on the test about to be taken are not given out, the substance of what will be asked in the questions is -- and is expected to be studied.

It is not in the interests of non-psychologists to become familiar with test protocols and test items because they may eventually need to be tested, for example, if early dementia is suspected or if they develop a brain tumor, or have other possible needs that may arise for future testing such as a disciplinary proceeding before the State Bar. When people have previously seen the tests, they themselves cannot be tested in a valid way.

Wrong. What do psychologists, other mental health professionals, school personnel, test publisher employees, researchers, judges and lawyers who deal with forensic experts, and every other person who at some point in the past took one of these tests do "if dementia is suspected or if they develop a brain tumor"? The argument is nonsense -- and would be even if persons with brain tumors or dementia were clever enough to recall and set about cheating on psych tests (and wanted to), and even if there also were not actual medical tests for these things. (The hypothesis of lawyer regulators possibly requiring a lawyer in the future to take a psych test is not only fantasy, but a transparent attempt to align himself on a superior peer-level with the judge versus the attorneys in the case, hoping in this way to persuade him to quash the subpoena by planting the suggestion that the lawyers are seeking discovery for unethical reasons, not for the purpose of adequately representing their clients. If a psych makes this argument, it's a bell ringer that he's a slick willy, further supporting the need for full, unfettered discovery.)

SEPT standard 11.15 addressing the potential for misinterpretation of test data states that "Test users should be alert to potential misinterpretation of test scores and to possible unintended consequences of test use; users should take steps to minimize or avoid foreseeable misinterpretation and unintended negative consequences". [So we have to withhold them from litigants and their lawyers who would like to twist around my words and cross-x me on my conclusions.]

Wrong. Misinterpretation of test scores and unintended consequences of test usage is exactly why full and unfettered discovery of ALL underlying data and testing materials is mandatory whenever these things are used in a forensic setting. Because virtually always, that misinterpretation is by psychs, not by litigants.  No research has established any harm befalling the general public from lay persons misinterpreting these tests (or the handy computer printouts of suggested diagnoses). On the other hand, psych tests routinely have been manipulated and misused by forensic opiners in court cases -- and elsewhere -- to make specious arguments that have harmed many persons. The integrity of the court system takes so much priority over the asserted need for integrity of these dubious psych instruments that this argument should be a nonstarter for any judge worth his salt.

The rationale for test security protection as a public policy issue to prevent harm was upheld in Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440, U. S. 301 (1979), where-in the United States Supreme Court ruled that test security pre-empted the release of test results in the form of data and records to someone other than a qualified professional.

Wrong. The case isn't close to on-point. It involved an employer with a testing program who rejected certain applicants, and who was sued by the union. The employer refused to disclose the test data of employees who had been promised confidentiality. The material implicated employee privacy concerns and was trade secret of the actual defendant in the case. It was not prepared by a forensic expert in anticipation of being used as part of the foundation of his paid opinion in a court case.           Compare: "On Oct. 24, 1995, in the case of Sharon L. and Warren E. Campbell v. Barry A. Mashek (Iowa District Court Consolidated Law Case No. 65070), the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa found the section of the Iowa code restricting release of test data to be unconstitutional under both federal and state law. In that case, several experts, including the renowned testing expert Dr. Paul Meehl, testified by affidavit that, 'Allowing a psychologist to offer opinions at trial, which are not subject to full and fair examination, based on the underlying test data, is repugnant to the basic principles of science and would fundamentally hinder any neutral body, such as a jury, in trying to arrive at valid conclusions about the condition of an individual who has put their psychological condition at issue by bringing a lawsuit.'" -- Paul R. Lees-Haley, Ph.D., and John C. Courtney, Psy.D. in Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?

SEPT standard 11.8 states that test users have the responsibility to respect test copyrights. When purchasing psychological tests, psychologists agree to uphold copyright laws.

Wrong. It is not a violation of copyright to turn over materials in response to a subpoena for discovery, or to make photocopies of the materials for use in connection with litigation. Period. This falls squarely within the fair use exceptions.         If and to the extent the test publisher markets its products for its own profit for intended use in court, it also has knowingly, and in advance, thereby agreed to any publication that foreseeably ensues in connection with those court proceedings, because those proceedings ordinarily should be expected to comport with due process.  There is an easy solution if the test publisher or the forensic psych doesn't like this. Don't use these instruments for forensic work. It is validly argued that by doing so, the psych deliberately, and for his own financial gain and self-aggrandizement, cavalierly set in motion a contract violation of his own doing. He cannot, after doing so, and after setting up a [purported] conflict of interest -- a dilemma of his own making -- now place the burden of rectifying that malfeasance on other people's time, money, and fundamental rights. A subpoena quash or protective order is an equitable remedy -- and the psych and the test publisher have dirty hands and cannot come into court midstream, changing their tune and begging for protection at others' expense and detriment. (Compare the psychs' concerns with articles copyright. Not. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html#muchconcern )

Not to expose test materials to unauthorized non-qualified users, is part of my contractual obligation with the publishers, Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) and Pearson Assessments, of all tests used in the present case.

Wrong. One: Private contracts of unrelated third parties who are not in privity with court litigants do not change these other people's constitutional rights.  Two: Litigants and lawyers are not "unqualified users" in connection with a court case. (See Lees-Haley and Courtney, above).  And three: If and to the extent the test publisher markets its products for its own profit for intended use in court, then it has knowingly, and in advance, thereby agreed to any publication that foreseeably ensues in connection with those court proceedings, because they may be expected to comport with due process. (Ifarguendo it has not done so, that means that the psych deliberately, knowingly, in advance, and for his own financial gain, breached his own contract. He thus has dirty hands and cannot obtain equitable relief from the consequences of his own wrongdoing at innocent others' expense and detriment.)

I have a [conveniently self-serving] letter here from the test publisher... the import of the publisher's position is that these materials are trade secrets.

Wrong. Material that is readily sold, that is available to competitors, that is in the publicly-accessible files of the Library of Congress, that is discussed in articles and published in books that also are available to the public, and that is not kept by the test publisher from tens of thousands of psychs is not a trade secret. While test publishers individually indeed may have various trade secrets, they do not include material in the possession of competitors and industry-wide third party users. Trade secret law is utterly inapplicable, because its purpose is to protect competition -- to protect one business from its competitors. Once material is shared within the industry, trade secret law no longer applies. Interestingly,psychs here have the same issues that magicians do, in that they attempt to keep material secret from the public but the material is well-known in and among the industry competitors.          (As an aside, it also is not an argument to prevent discovery to claim that publications are available elsewhere. Even when they are, the specific materials within the particular possession of the psych remain discoverable to ascertain whether they have been altered, written on, contain notes, are complete, are up-to-date copies, and so forth.)

The materials under consideration can and will be released only to a qualified professional designated by the attorney.

Wrong. Neither the lawyer nor the self-represented litigant are obligated to breach attorney work product and disclose their consulting expert to the psych in order to obtain discovery. Nor are they obligated to expend yet more money and hire yet another psych, if they have not already done so, in order to obtain discovery. Moreover, even if they happen to agree with this demand, because it costs them nothing, because a consulting psych already is on the case and at the ready, the contortions of turning the material over to a member of the lawyer's litigation team, a contractor or employee working under and reporting to the lawyer, are inane and pointless. All of these persons, including the lawyer, are working for and paid by the client; they will be sitting 'round the table, discussing, copying, sharing the material, and consulting with each other in preparation for trial.          (Lees-Haley and Courtney, supra, also argue that there is no actual definition of a "qualified professional" and that for purposes of litigation, the litigant and his lawyer are it.)

Should the Court decline the current motion to quash, it is requested that the Court issue a protective order requiring Dr. Yaddayadda's file first to be subject to in-camera review.

Wrong. This is a violation of the parties' due process rights. Discovery of these materials was a foreseeable event when the psych voluntarily, and for a fee, injected them into other people's court proceeding. The situation is not akin to necessary proceedings that might ensue when a patient's records are subpoena'd from a therapist. Here, there is no valid reason for the materials to be reviewed in advancein camera. Such a review implies a possible need to cull materials that might not be discoverable.         In the latter case, the potential harm to the discovering litigant is balanced against the rights of an unwitting, involuntary person who actually may have trade secrets or privacy issues, but has had them unexpectedly subpoena'd. It is an effort of last resort that risks biasing the fact finder (the judge, in a custody case) with out-of-court material that has not been introduced into the proceedings by the parties. This risk makes it a procedure that is neither fitting nor appropriate under forensic circumstances, over and above it being a pointless drain on the court's and everyone else's time and resources. (That a court-appointed evaluator would request this indicates either deliberate recalcitrance or ignorance of a degree that calls into question the rest of his judgment.)

Should the Court decline the current motion to quash, it is requested that the Court issue a protective order that the file be distributed only to the attorneys representing each party in the current litigation, and that they be ordered not to disseminate it to anyone else.

Wrong. Lawyers are their clients' agents, not their handlers. The client is the principal, i.e. the boss.A lawyer not only is under an ethical obligation to communicate with his client, but as a practical matter, cannot adequately prepare his client's case without doing so. Moreover, the lawyer not only needs to disseminate the material to his client, but both need time to contemplate the material, review it multiple times as necessary, refer to it in deposition, and possibly consult with other lawyers or mental health professionals about it. It is the client's, not the lawyer's case.          In addition, the client may wish to consult with another lawyer for a second opinion, who may not be disclosed to his attorney of record, or to discharge his lawyer of record and proceed with another lawyer, or on his own. This is nobody else's business.          A lawyer may not enter into agreements that hamper his client in this way, or prevent his client from obtaining alternate counsel in this way, or which place the lawyer into a contractual conflict of interest with his own client, in favor of the psych or some test publishing company to whom the psych alleges he is beholden. Nor can a judge validly restrict the attorney-client relationship in this way, or countermand the attorney-client representation or rules of ethics that come from higher legal authorities.          Finally, no one else is entitled to know -- or to receive assurances or explanation -- of the communications that will transpire between the lawyer and client, or the procedure they will follow in connection with preparing the case. These are matters that are absolutely privileged, and may not be encroached upon by a court (or any third party) as a favor to the psych in lieu of compelling him to fork over the materials or else be held in contempt or barred from testifying.  The psych in essence is claiming that he has deliberately set upon a course of action moving toward his own foreseeable breach of asserted obligations to third parties, and now -- with his dirty hands -- comes to the court for equitable relief on other people's dime and time. And to their detriment. (So much for the great professed concern for public welfare.)          It is true that some courts grant these requests. Not infrequently they are doing so as a gratuitous concession to the psych, posturing as if there were some actual issue to resolve, because this permits them to not have to impose mandatory discovery sanctions against the ignorant losing party (the psych). This is wrong and indicates bias in favor of the forensic, who should know better, and who should be held to higher standards and required to pay the costs of the proceeding.          Frequently too, because psychs' reports are turned in at the eleventh hour, things are in a mad rush to trial, and the parties' lawyers do not have sufficient time or manpower (or funds) to dork around having hearings and appeals on these issues (let alone antagonize the court-appointee psych who already is wielding unwarranted power with the judge), so in the triage of trial preparation, they choose their battles and relent. None of it is evidence that the psych, now emboldened by his lack of understanding of what has been transpiring (rather than being grateful -- as he should be -- to not have to be footing the bill for his recalcitrance), was correct, not even a little. (See Ethical Problems: Why Therapeutic Jurisprudence Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts

Should the Court decline the current motion to quash, it is requested that the Court issue a protective order that the attorneys may not keep copies of the file, and must return it after Dr. Yaddayadda's reported evaluation has been examined and cross-examined.

Wrong. It's evidence in the case (and the litigant paid for the copying charges). The material provides the foundation for evidence that may be introduced into the record in one way or another. It thus may be needed at a rehearing, at subsequent hearings, or on appeal. It is evidence upon which decisions may be made that thereafter will be the law of the case. Some courts, after the fact at some ostensibly safe point in time, may agree to seal a court record, but this is utterly inappropriate in any case in which a child's custody remains open for continued redetermination. It also unwarrantedly hinders litigants from filing justifiable board complaints where necessary for malfeasance.

Noted authorities on ethical principles of psychologists have stated that "Psychologists may ask the Court for [i.e. expect the court to give them] a protective order to prevent the inappropriate disclosure of confidential information or suggest that the information be submitted to another psychologist for qualified review" [Here's the proud psych's sample motion] C.B. Fisher, The National Psychologist, Test data standard most notable change in new APA ethics code (January/February 2003) , p 12, citing Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision Making, by Bush, Connell, & Denny, APA Books, pp 106 (2006)

Wrong. On all counts. These are not authorities at law -- they are psychs with various self-interested motives. This is not "confidential information". And the third-party receiving psych doesn't apply in the forensic context. Interestingly, one of the rationales psychs used back when lobbying for increased forensic evaluations in the family courts was that these would protect litigants' confidential therapy records. The public stupidly went along with this reasoning, as if psychs have objective ways of knowing the invisible, as if they are similar to physicians who might do a blood test and diagnose a condition. The APA ethics code also requires psychologists to adhere to certain guidelines and procedures in administering and interpreting tests. Without permitting the lawyer access to all the information required to enable him to investigate whether this was done and to cross-examine the psych, there is no way to establish compliance with these other ethical guidelines. Discovery is necessary to verify the psych's compliance with the ethical requirement that "Psychologists only use tests in appropriate ways" (such as when the use is empirically validated by research). Discovery is necessary to ascertain whether "Assessment results have been interpreted in light of the limitations inherent in such procedures." And, among other things, discovery is necessary to ferret out bias, corruption, and incompetence -- which are rampant among psychologists in family court. See 1987 Grisso, "The Economic and Scientific Future of Forensic Psychological Assessment, American Psychologist: "There is almost no empirical information concerning how to use parents' Wechsler or MMPI results to make inferences about their abilities to perform specific parenting functions." See 1993 Brodzinsky, "On The Use and Misuse of Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations," Professional Psychology: Research and Practice: "Many lawyers and judges have an unrealistic view of what psychological testing can accomplish." "There is often an assumption, sometimes expressed overtly, that testing provides a scientific foundation for the forensic evaluation. In other words, it allows the evaluator to go beyond the subjective nature of 'clinical impression' or 'clinical judgment' that is inherent in interviews and observations." "There is a view that psychological tests allow the evaluator to be truly objective and therefore unbiased. This assumption is, of course, naive." See 1997 Melton, Petrilla, Poythress, and Slobogin, Psychological Evaluations for the Courts, 2d ed.: "It is our contention that such tests are often used inappropriately. Tests of intellectual capacity, achievement, personality style, and psychopathology are linked only indirectly, at best, to the key issues concerning custody and visitation." "Apparent practices notwithstanding, we recommend the use of traditional psychological tests only when specific problems or issues that these tests were designed to measure appear salient in the case."

FLORIDA LAW (similar to a number of other states): Florida Administrative Code, 64B19-18.004 Use of Test Instruments... There are three exceptions to the prohibition against the release of test data. What are they, what do they mean, why are they there, and when do they apply: "A psychologist who uses test instruments may not release test data, such as test protocols, test questions, assessment-related notes, or written answer sheets, except 1) to a licensed psychologist or school psychologist... To the extent not superseded by federal medical privacy law, the first exception above is what you do with records requested by a patient or his representative, when you are the therapist and there is no court proceeding. 2) after complying with the procedures set forth in Rule 64B19-19.005, F.A.C., and obtaining an order from a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction or The second exception is what you do when your or your patient's confidential therapy records are subpoena'd in litigation that otherwise has nothing to do with you and in which you were not planning to testify. 3) when the release of the material is otherwise required by law. Item #3 is not redundant, and doesn't mean the same thing as #2, "get a court order." The third exception is for what you do when you are a forensic witness in a court case, and receive a subpoena. FORK IT OVER. Maintaining the transparent, fundamentally fair operation of our justice system is not merely the law; it's a precept upon which the United States of America was founded.

This judge... that court... this lawyer... that judge... this court... said, commented, did, didn't, agreed, understood, cooperated, granted, gave, told, exalted, praised... me-me, me me, meme... blah-blah, blah yadda, blah-blah...

Wrong. Judges sometimes are. That's why we have appellate courts. Lawyers too. That's why I've written this. And psychs? Count on it. It's time to get the psychs out of the family courts.

The use of violence by fathers’ rights activists: A compilation of news reports Fathers Rights Bomb Threats

This is only a part of the article the entire 70 page document is from xyonline here

Fathers' rights bomb threats.doc

Attachment Size 490.5 KB

and more here:

The use of violence by fathers’ rights activists: A compilation of news reports

Compiled by Michael Flood, April 2006

Note: The following is a compilation of examples of bomb threats, other forms of abuse or harassment, actual bombings, and other criminal behaviour (such as planned kidnapping) committed largely in the UK but also in Australia, by fathers’ right activists. It also includes some cases where fathers’ rights activists have convictions for domestic violence, although it concentrates on the use of bomb threats and other forms of public violence.

I compiled this collection of news reports using the media database “Factiva”. I searched for relevant items over the period from March 2006 back to mid-2003, and I looked only in newspaper reports (rather than also in radio, television, and other sources). I have copied below the news items I could find about the use of violence by fathers’ rights activists. I have omitted news reports of fathers’ rights actions involving non-violent direct action, such as those by Fathers4Justice in the UK (such as throwing a flour-filled condom at Prime Minister Tony Blair in the British Parliament, scaling Westminster Abbey in April 2006, and so on).

These news reports demonstrate that fathers’ rights groups have used tactics of intimidation and violence, such incidents are well documented, they are being used now rather than only in the past, and at times they have resulted in injuries or deaths.

In the “short version” of this compilation below, I have deleted text from each report that does not pertain directly to the use of violence. In the “long version” below this, I have included the full text for each item. However, I have made no changes to the actual text of these news items.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHORT VERSION

Howard’s family friendly court pick

Katherine Towers

25 June 2004

Australian Financial Review

[…] In 1980, Family Court Justice David Opas was shot dead in his Sydney home. Four years later, Justice Richard Gee was admitted to hospital after a bomb destroyed his Sydney home.

In July 1984, Pearl Watson, wife of Family Court judge Justice Ray Watson, was murdered when a bomb exploded on the doorstep of their home.

---------

Family Court security ‘at risk’.

By Benjamin Haslem.

15 July 2003

The Australian

[…] Mr Rowley said there was now “a much higher chance of security being compromised” in the Family Court, which has lost two judges to assassination and has been involved in numerous stabbings, shootings and assaults.

[…] In 1980, Family Court judge David Opas was assassinated outside his Sydney home in front of his young family.

Four years later Justice Richard Gee was killed when a bomb exploded at his Sydney home.

A month later a bomb exploded at the Family Court in Parramatta, three months before the wife of Justice Raymond Watson, Pearl, was killed by a bomb at the couple’s Sydney home.

CORRECTIONS - IN an article headlined “Family Court security ‘at risk’’’ on Page 3 yesterday it was reported that the then Family Court judge Richard Gee was killed when a bomb exploded at his Sydney home in 1984. Justice Gee was injured, not killed, and is still alive. The Australian sincerely apologises to Justice Gee, his family and friends for any distress caused by the error. (AUSTLN, 16/7/2003)

---------

Family courts under fire from angry parents and protesters

Jon Robins

11 January 2005

The Times

Jon Robins reports on how Cafcass is coping with some hostile campaigners

THE publicity stunts pulled off by campaiging fathers might make us smile, but the extremes to which some of the more militant protesters go are no joke to the staff of the Child and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass).

More than 100 hoax bomb warnings were sent to Cafcass offices in one year. The scale of the campaign against the troubled children’s court service was revealed recently in a dossier prepared by the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo).

[…] Over the past few months the campaign against Cafcass has increased. A package containing fish heads, rotting meat and maggots was delivered to the Portsmouth office in September. It was reported in the local press that one protester had said: “We have names and addresses” of Cafcass officers. In October, the following message was left on the answerphone at the Kingston office: “Your days of abusing children and families are numbered - the day of reckoning is at hand.” […]

---------

Law frustrates mothers” desire to tell the other side of story

Maxine Frith

15 September 2004

The Independent

THEY ARE portrayed as scorned women who take out their bitterness over a failed relationship on the innocent fathers of their children.

But for the former partners of men in the Fathers 4 Justice movement, the high-profile protests are a source of frustration and intimidation which leave them no right to reply.

[…] But the women whose former partners have joined F4J are often plunged into an impossible position by the stunts. They are frustrated by what they say is one-sided reporting of their ex-partners” conduct..

If they speak out, they risk breaching court injunctions over naming their children in public - many of the men, including the Batman protester Jason Hatch, circumvent these rules by changing their names.

When details do emerge, it becomes obvious that in many cases, the circumstances are not as clear cut as F4J often portrays them. Mr O”Connor”s former wife Sophie has said - and he has since admitted - that he had affairs, drank heavily and failed to keep to the initial arrangements for access to their children. Another F4J member, Conrad Campbell, told how he was jailed last year for texting his son on his birthday. But he had been sent on an anger management programme for attacking his former partner, and was under a court injunction.

Lawyers who act for the women also tend to refuse media requests for interviews.

Some outspoken solicitors have experienced the more intimidating tactics of the pressure group. The buildings of the Parker Bird law firm in Huddersfield were stormed this year by more than 15 members of F4J, who graffitied the walls. They presented Karen Woodhead, the head of family law, with a golden petrol can, which they claimed represented her firm “pouring petrol on the flames in divorce and childcare cases”.

Last summer, David Burrows, who was head of the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA), was ambushed by a protest outside his home. Kim Beatson, who chairs the SFLA, said: “They claim they are non-violent but they are becoming increasingly militant.” […]

---------

Poor, poor daddy. Nasty old mummy: The tactics now used by estranged fathers can only harm children

Madeleine Bunting:

6 February 2004

The Guardian

The tactics are those of the playground bully. Clever, attention grabbing, even witty: Batman, Robin, Superman and Spider-Man instigated traffic chaos this week in Bristol when they climbed Clifton suspension bridge to protest at the alleged systematic discrimination against fathers wanting contact with their children after divorce. Spider-Man pulled off a similar feat on London’s Tower Bridge last November when he sat in a crane for six days.

But it’s not just macho stunts. Fathers 4 Justice’s tactics are getting more personal and much nastier. A few days ago, they targeted the home of a third female family court judge. Judge Marilyn Mornington was away, so her two sons, 17 and 20, were left to face the demonstrators’ chanted threats. Last summer, there was a wave of 60 hoax bomb attacks on family courts across Britain. […]

---------

Mail bomb hoax alert.

15 August 2003

The Express

UP to 60 packages made to look like letter bombs and chemical or biological booby traps were posted to courts and family law centres yesterday.

At least half were sent to Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service offices.

Many were postmarked locally, suggesting a campaign rather than a lone protester. The packages proved harmless, but Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch is investigating.

[…]

---------

“I HIT MY OWN WIFE”

231 words

5 January 2005

South Wales Echo

Prominent fathers” rights campaigner Matthew Mudge has a conviction for assaulting his former wife, it emerged today. Mr Mudge, 41, is chairman of the Cardiff branch of Fathers Need Families and a member of the controversial Fathers 4 Justice campaign.

[…] In 1998, Cardiff magistrates were told Mr Mudge denied hitting his wife in their then home in Whitchurch.

Today, he told the Echo he has never made a secret of his conviction, and that all the groups with whom he is involved - including Match: Mothers Apart from Their Children - know of his past.

“I have nothing to be ashamed of because, as I said at my trial, I did nothing wrong,” he said.

“I had never been in trouble with the police before, and I have not been in trouble since. All my friends know that I simply would not have behaved in that way.”

In court, Ilone Mudge, a doctor, accused her husband of punching her after breaking in to their bathroom when she locked herself inside. […]

---------

Welsh Fathers4Justice activist assaulted wife

By MARTIN SHIPTON Western Mail

5 January 2005

The Western Mail

The most prominent campaigner for fathers” rights in Wales has two convictions for assaulting his former wife.

During one of the assaults, which took place seven years ago, Matthew Mudge is alleged to have knocked his then wife unconscious.

Our disclosure comes after a network TV programme claimed several unnamed prominent members of Fathers4Justice had convictions involving domestic violence against their former partners. […]

---------

Protesting fathers are accused of dirty tricks

31 December 2004

Western Daily Press

A West courtroom worker has been branded a “Nazi war criminal” while colleagues face a stream of intimidation from fathers’ rights protesters, it was claimed yesterday.

Probation officers’ union Napo sent Children’s Minister Margaret Hodge a dossier about incidents of verbal abuse and physical threats.

They included more than 100 bomb hoaxes sent to offices of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). It also claimed the names of family court staff had been published on websites, and their offices daubed with graffiti, locks glued, windows broken and banners unfurled on buildings calling them “child abusers”.

In one incident, a large, rotten fish was posted at a Cafcass office and another received a message saying:

“Your days of abusing children and families are numbered - the day of reckoning is at hand.” […]

A Cafcass spokeswoman claimed that Fathers4Justice was among the groups responsible for the intimidation.

She said: “We cannot go ahead like this. All our staff have the right to get on with their jobs without fear of intimidation.

“In the past, intimidating behaviour has been proven to have originated from Fathers4Justice.

“We have had the names of workers in Bristol and Taunton posted on websites.

“Following people down the street calling them child abusers, or saying ‘We know where you live’ is not acceptable.”

---------

Dads’ rights campaigners suspended

8 December 2004

Portsmouth News

TWO Fathers 4 Justice campaigners have been suspended after a News investigation exposed racism, sexism and violence at the heart of the Hampshire branch of the group.

Hampshire co-ordinator Phil Osgood and his right-hand man Paul Robinson could now be thrown out of the fathers’ rights group after our undercover investigation.

Yesterday, after our reporter infiltrated the group for three months, we revealed how Mr Osgood of Beryton Road, Gosport, bragged about threatening his ex-lover’s new boyfriend with a baseball bat and how some members got drunk while on camping trips with their children and called for ‘Pakis’ to be sent back home.

We also revealed how Mr Robinson of Eastern Avenue, Milton, Portsmouth, condoned violence on a woman who stopped a father seeing his child.

Mr Osgood defended his words and actions but Mr Robinson denied making the comments.

But now Fathers 4 Justice’s co-founder, Matt O’Connor, has suspended the pair and launched an inquiry into their behaviour.

---------

FATHERS 4 TERROR.

BY BECKY SHEAVES

25 November 2004

Daily Mail

HOW THINGS change. Just a few weeks ago I wrote an article in which I explained why, as a wife and mother, I passionately supported Fathers 4 Justice. […] But recent heavy-handed, intimidating and downright violent incidents by angry fathers’ rights activists have given me -- and many others -- cause for great concern.

It seems that the so-called ‘fathers’ move-ment’ has adopted similarly distasteful tactics to those used by animal rights protesters.

In doing so, the pressure group is in danger of alienating any moderate supporters it once had. In one of the worst incidents, an angry father poured petrol over a female solicitor’s car engine. If she had started the car, it could have exploded and caused enormous damage and injury.

In August, there was the occupation of Gloucester’s Cafcass (Children And Family Court Advisory And Support Service) office, when superhero- clad Fathers 4 Justice campaigners called the staff there ‘child abusers’ through a megaphone, identifying them by name.

The same office also came under attack when rotting meat and fish were pushed through its letterbox. Fathers 4 Justice has admitted it may have been involved. A senior member of Cafcass staff said: ‘The whole place was stinking for a week, the smell was revolting. And to be called child abusers is deeply insulting for my staff.’

In another unpleasant incident in the Midlands, Fathers 4 Justice activists invaded a Cafcass office and tied up an employee who suffered from a heart condition. Judges, too, have been targeted. Andrew Don, a district judge from Reading, gave a radio interview last month in which he said the law was not biased in favour of the mother, but aimed to serve the best interests of the child.

‘Almost immediately I received all kinds of aggressive e-mails with threats,’ he said. Days later, his office was invaded by ten men from Fathers 4 Justice in decontamination suits. So much for freedom of speech.

CAFCASS court reporters are members of Napo, the National Association of Probation Officers, and the organisation has been so appalled by the threats meted out to its members by militant fathers that it has compiled a dossier of incidents of intimidation. The union is due to present its claims to Government ministers this month.

And so it seems that what began as an earnest and heartfelt campaign is, sadly, now attracting the sort of men who are angry, aggressive and violent. The very men I would hope the courts do keep away from children.

Jason Hatch, the Batman who occupied the Buckingham Palace balcony for six hours in September, has four children by three women, all in relationships which have since foundered.

In January 2002, Hatch appeared at Gloucester Crown Court accused of threatening to kill his then wife Victoria Jones, mother of two of his children. It was ordered that the charges were to lie on file.

Despite this, Fathers 4 Justice refuses to condemn him and he remains one of the campaign’s leading lights.

‘What he said to Victoria was uttered in the heat of the moment during a time when he was very upset and distressed at not seeing his children,’ says the campaign’s leader, Matt O’Connor. Be that as it may, Hatch has subsequently not helped his cause by boasting to an undercover journalist that he has bedded more than 100 women in his life and revealing a worryingly misogynistic streak.

‘I just love ******* women,’ he told the reporter. ‘I’ve had more than 100 one-night stands in the past five years. They are all bitches.’

Matt O’Connor points out that a high number of lovers does not necessarily make a man a bad father. True, but in a battle for the hearts and minds of the British public, such information is hardly likely to boost the Fathers 4 Justice campaign.

The pressure group does have one man convicted of violence among its most high-profile activists. He is deputy leader Eddie Gorecki, 46, who recently scaled the Royal Courts of Justice dressed as Batman. He married his ex-wife, Kelly, in 1988. They have four children together, but it was a relationship marred by violence, so much so that Kelly several times took out injunctions against Gorecki.

In 1995, according to Kelly, he beat her so badly that she suffered two skull fractures and spent five days in intensive care. He later attacked her cousin at a barbecue during a heated family row.

KELLY has said: ‘I ended up dropping the charges. He then beat up my cousin, Shelly. He is a thug and he shouldn’t represent decent fathers.’ Shelly Johnson, Kelly’s cousin, suffered a broken nose and black eyes and didn’t shy away from pressing charges against Gorecki. He was jailed for nine months for affray and assault in June 2001. You would imagine that Fathers 4 Justice would want to distance itself from these violent, dangerous men. But Matt O’Connor refuses to do so.

‘I believe in rehabilitation and righting wrongs,’ he told me yesterday. ‘If a man has done his time and taken his punishment, he should be given another chance. These men can still be loving, devoted fathers. The violence issue is really peripheral to our campaign.’ […]

---------

Fathers ‘terrorise’ lawyers

John Elliott and Abul Taher

21 November 2004

The Sunday Times

Campaigners accused of threats

MEMBERS of Fathers 4 Justice have been accused of inspiring a campaign of violent threats and intimidation against court staff and family lawyers.

A dossier compiled by the union representing family court staff shows its members have been sent fake letter bombs and hate mail, had rotting meat put through an office letter box and been subjected to verbal abuse.

In one of the worst incidents -for which nobody has claimed responsibility -a solicitor found her car engine and headlights doused in petrol, which could have exploded when she started the engine.

Fathers 4 Justice, which seeks to improve fathers’ access to children following marriage break-ups, denies involvement in this incident but admits staging attacks on the offices of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass).

It denies its members have carried out attacks on individuals. However, the union, Napo, accuses it of leading the campaign against Cafcass staff.

The union, which will present its evidence to ministers this month, claims Fathers 4 Justice and other fathers’ rights groups have in the past year adopted similar tactics to animal rights militants where staff have been “named and shamed” on websites. This is staunchly denied by Fathers 4 Justice.

[…] In one of the most serious attacks, 60 fake bombs were sent to Cafcass offices last year causing buildings to be evacuated and anti-terrorist police brought in to investigate. […]

---------

Workplace Staff targeted in hate campaign.

Shirley Kumar

28 October 2004

Community Care

A small number of fathers’ rights “campaigners” are mounting a hate campaign against the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services.

In the past five months, rotting fish, decomposing meat and live maggots have been posted through the letterboxes of 20 regional offices in England and Wales.

Children and family court reporters have been followed home, received abusive phone calls and had personal property vandalised. Last year, around 100 suspect parcels were posted to regional offices. […]

----------

Police launch investigation as MP targeted in handbills

By BESSIE ROBINSON

384 words

15 October 2004

The Northern Echo

05

English

(c) 2004 North of England Newspapers.

HUNDREDS of handbills attacking one of the region’s most senior MPs were delivered to homes and businesses across her constituency in a co-ordinated night-time operation.

Police are investigating Tuesday’s leaflet drop, which was branded the work of cowards and bullies by their target, Government Chief Whip and North-West Durham MP Hilary Armstrong.

Over a few hours, residents in an area covering Crook, Wolsingham, Frosterley, Castleside, Lanchester and Langley Park, in County Durham, reported seeing young men in dark suits handing out the unsigned photocopies.

In Wolsingham, they were seen working in pairs in the Market Place at about 8.30pm before a group of six met up and moved to another part of the village.

The literature claimed to be “not from a political party, but from a mother whose family has been destroyed”, and criticised her stance on such issues as homosexuality, drug misuse, domestic violence, foxhunting, rural crime and fathers’ rights. […]

----------

Who’s afraid of the big bad dad? His idea of protest is to harass women and children, dressed in the black shirt of historical oppression. Meet the leader of the extreme wing of the father’s movement. By Julie-Anne Davies.

By Julie-Anne Davies

1,131 words

12 October 2004

The Bulletin

Volume 122; Number 41

[…] Abbott is the charismatic leader of the “Black Shirts”, a disparate group of middle-aged (mainly) men whose demands include repeal of divorce laws and the abolition of the Family Court. Their vigilante tactics - staging demonstrations outside women’s homes dressed in their heavily symbolic black uniforms and masks, and addressing the neighbourhood with megaphones - were last week described by a Victorian County Court judge as grotesque.

The judge’s comments came after Abbott was found guilty of stalking a Melbourne woman who was formerly married to an associate of his. During the trial, the court heard that Abbott and three or four of his masked cohorts staged two protests outside the woman’s home. The group also letterboxed the woman’s neighbours with leaflets that said, among other things, that she was involved in a child-access dispute and described her as a “so-called mother”. None of this impressed Judge Leslie Ross, who, in sentencing Abbott to four months’ jail (suspended for 18 months), equated the Black Shirts’ intimidating attire with European fascist oppression.

[…]

---------

Blackshirt gets suspended jail term

Chee Chee Leung

30 September 2004

The Age

The leader of the Blackshirts fathers’ group walked free from court yesterday after receiving a suspended jail term for stalking a divorced mother.

A County Court judge described John Abbott’s conduct as grotesque and frightening, before imposing a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.

The 58-year-old was found guilty on Tuesday of stalking the woman in September 2001 by holding two protests outside her eastern suburbs home.

Abbott and three or four other men wore black uniforms and masked their faces with scarves in what the judge described as “quite grotesque” behaviour.

Judge Leslie Ross said the Blackshirts’ intimidating attire was synonymous with European oppression, and led to a “most harrowing and frightening” situation.

He said it was unacceptable and unpardonable that the group used a loudspeaker and named the woman, who was formerly married to an associate of Abbott. The men also distributed leaflets to the woman’s neighbours that said she was in a child-access dispute and described her as a “so-called mother”. […]

----------

Abbott to put shirt on political push

Peter Ellingsen

592 words

3 October 2004

Sunday Age

Last week the law caught up with John Abbott. The leader of the Blackshirts fathers’ group was found guilty in the County Court of stalking, and given a four-month suspended jail sentence. It came two years after Abbott, 58, shocked the city by leading posses of masked men to protest outside the homes of often terrified women. […]

--------

Fathers 4 Justice to disband in wake of kidnapping plot

Jan Melrose

493 words

19 January 2006

THE fathers’ rights campaigner who carried out a flour bomb attack on Tony Blair has condemned a plot to kidnap the Prime Minister’s son.

Ron Davis, from Findon near Worthing, spoke yesterday before Fathers 4 Justice announced it was to disband in the wake of the furore over the alleged plot.

Mr Davis hit the headlines in 2004 when he and Guy Harrison, from Steyning, threw three condoms filled with purple flour over Mr Blair in the House of Commons.

The stunt was to raise awareness of the group’s view that fathers are unfairly treated by family courts.

But the kidnap plan, reported by The Sun newspaper yesterday to have been planned by a group of extremists on the periphery of Fathers 4 Justice, provoked widespread condemnation.

Mr Davis, who has not seen his 15-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son in seven years, said the plot to abduct five-year-old Leo was “horrendous”.

Later last night, the group’s leader Matt O’Connor told Channel 4 News the group could not continue in light of such negative publicity. He said: “I regret to say that three years after starting the organisation, we’re going to cease and bring it to a close.”

However, Terence Bates, of splinter group Real Fathers 4 Justice, insisted they would continue to campaign. He said Mr O’Connor should have wound up his arm of the group a year ago when it split.

[…] Special branch officers uncovered the plot as they investigated ex-members of Fathers 4 Justice expelled from the organisation for extremist behaviour. […]

----------

Family courts under fire from angry parents and protesters

Jon Robins

965 words

11 January 2005

The Times

Jon Robins reports on how Cafcass is coping with some hostile campaigners

THE publicity stunts pulled off by campaiging fathers might make us smile, but the extremes to which some of the more militant protesters go are no joke to the staff of the Child and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass).

More than 100 hoax bomb warnings were sent to Cafcass offices in one year

(KS) Eric K Rucker (You have got to be kidding me-)

I just received a phone call from an out of state Co-Blogger as  what we try to is bring down the father hood right movements nationally and the ‘secrecy’ and the veil under which they work..

 

Mr. Rucker keeps coming up in so many research-

this particular site really rakes.take a look at the faculty on this Christian

LAW CORRESPONDENCE school,,????????  (Oh good GAWD!)

all the faculty but two read about them and you decide,

http://www.obcl.edu/index.php/our-faculty

Rucker, Eric K.

A graduate of Kansas Wesleyan College (B.A. 1976) and Emporia State University (M.S. 1976), Professor Eric K. Rucker earned his juris doctor at Washburn School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. He is currently Chief Deputy District Attorney/Johnson County, Kansas. Mr. Rucker has served in a variety of government positions, including: Chief Deputy Attorney General of Kansas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Special Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Human Resources, a Director of the Kansas District and County Attorneys Association, County Commissioner, and was honorably discharged as a Captain, Judge Advocate General Corps, Kansas Army National Guard.

Professor Rucker and his wife, Joan, have three children and live in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.obcl.edu/index.php/our-faculty

Technorati Tags: Eric,Rucker,Blogger,father,secrecy,Christian,CORRESPONDENCE,GAWD,index,Kansas,Wesleyan,College,Emporia,State,Professor,doctor,Washburn,School,Topeka,Chief,District,Attorney,Johnson,government,General,Assistant,Secretary,Special,Administrative,Judge,Department,Human,Resources,Director,Attorneys,Association,Commissioner,Captain,Advocate,Corps,Army,National,Guard,wife,Joan,children,obcl

SUSAN MURPHY-MILANO JOINS ELITE SPEAKERS BUREAU

SUSAN MURPHY-MILANO JOINS ELITE SPEAKERS BUREAU

Posted by Administrator on 04/30/2010 · Leave a Comment 

The Elite Speaker’s Bureau, Inc. was founded by Denise Brown, sister of Nicole Brown Simpson and advocate against domestic violence. Nicole was a victim of domestic violence and was brutally murdered in 1994. Denise has traveled the world speaking out about the issue of domestic violence for over 15 years, which also exposed her to the harsh reality that many forms of violence occur in our neighborhoods, communities and society. Denise realized that more needs to be done, and more people need to know that issues of violence affect everyone.

Her vision has now become a reality, as she has brought together an elite group of speakers to spread the word and educate others.

Susan Murphy-Milano

As an expert in the area of intimate partner violence and the prevention ofhomicide, Susan Murphy-Milano has created specific tools and procedures which the abused need to safely leave a violent relationship.

In her new book “Time’s Up A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive Stalking Relationship ” Susan gives abuse victims a useful set of important instructions, their personal road map to safety.

Susan uses humor, passion, and all her years of experience to motivate her audience to become more effective first responders, advocates and professionals in their work to stop family violence.

Susan is proud to be represented by such a distinguished group and in the company of her peers and professionals working to end family violence.

To say that Susan Murphy Milano has hit the nail on the head (again) is a total understatement!  Murphy Milano’s book is well crafted and timely.  She not only discusses the “problem” but takes it one step further in this soup-to-nuts handbook……..Robin Sax, Legal Analyst

Technorati Tags: SUSAN,MURPHY,MILANO,ELITE,BUREAU,Administrator,Leave,Comment,Speaker,Denise,Brown,Nicole,Simpson,violence,victim,world,needs,vision,word,area,prevention,tools,procedures,relationship,Time,Guide,Survive,Abusive,victims,road,passion,audience,understatement,soup,handbook,Robin,Legal,Analyst,SPEAKERS

Man with knife, murder-suicide note arrested at Gardena day-care center

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14986162

By Larry Altman Staff Writer

Posted: 04/29/2010 04:29:04 PM PDT

A man carrying a butcher knife and a note indicating he was going to kill himself and his 10-month-old son was arrested Thursday when he tried to kidnap the boy from a Gardena day-care center, police said.

Latron McDowell, 20, of Los Angeles was taken into custody when police confronted him at an in-home child-care business in the 13400 block of Wilton Place, Gardena police Lt. Steve Prendergast said.

When police arrived, he was in a physical fight with a female day-care provider, Prendergast said.

Officers ordered McDowell to stop, but he ran. Officers chased him down.

Police determined McDowell had arrived at the facility in a stolen vehicle that was taken earlier from a used-auto dealership.

"McDowell was in possession of a butcher knife and a suicide note indicating he was going to take his life, along with his 10-month-old son's life," Prendergast said.

McDowell admitted to detectives that he stole the car to drive to the day-care provider's home to kidnap his son.

"He also admitted he was going to kill his son, then kill himself," Prendergast said.

Prendergast said an earlier fight with the boy's mother prompted McDowell to attempt the murder-suicide.

He did not have custody rights to take the child from the day-care provider.

McDowell was arrested on suspicion of attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, assault and auto theft.

He was held at the Gardena jail on $1 million bail.

larry.altman@dailybreeze.com

WordPress Tags: Gardena,news,Larry,Altman,Staff,Writer,Latron,McDowell,Angeles,custody,Wilton,Place,Steve,Prendergast,provider,Police,vehicle,auto,possession,life,stole,rights,suspicion,theft,bail,Officers,suicide,dailybreeze,himself,month