Faces of the Family Court Crisis from James Hall Photography on Vimeo.
A project for Center for Judicial Excellence (centerforjudicialexcellence.org).
Video and photography by James Hall (88zero.com).
Original score by Matteo Favero (figuramusicstudio.com/)
To learn more go to: centerforjudicialexcellence.org/PhotoExhibit.htm
Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977
Presents:
American Mothers Political Party BTR—LIVE Radio
www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org
SPECIAL GUEST! Susan Murphy-Milano is a non-fiction author and violence expert—a defender of victims' rights. A radio show host, Susan has appeared on Oprah, 20/20, American Justice, and CNN.
As a nationally recognized women's advocate, she was instrumental in the passage of the Illinois Stalking Law and the Lautenberg Act.
Susan's 4th book, "Time's Up” How to Escape Abusive and Stalking Relationships Guide , A Survival Manual for those in abuse, stalking and Violent Relationships.
Creator and Co-host of the hottest shows on Blog Talk radio: "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation" with co-host Sheryl McCollum Director of the Cold Case Institute and sponsored by www.websleuths.com and Crime Wire www.blogtalkradio.com/crimewire for families seeking answers in suspicious and unsolved crimes with co-hosts veteran law enforcement and authors Vito Colucci, Jr., and Dennis N. Griffith.
We will be discussing the latest case of a suicidal fathers rampage, John Skelton, who on Thanksgiving day gave his children to a woman so that he could commit suicide.
He survived but the children and the mystery woman are still missing. We will be asking Susan questions on how this case relates to the countless she has experienced and taking your thoughts and questions.
This is the show you don't want to MISS!
DUNG
by mamaliberty
WHATS BROWN AND SOUNDS LIKE A BELL?
I think the appropriate word for this dude isninny….
UK based mail online MR. Justice Coleridge states that:
Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.
The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.
He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.
The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.
Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.
Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.
Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’
He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.
First things first….how you could even take this Marie Antoinette cross dressing wannabe serious is beyond me! If the laws were applied the same for fathers abusers to be to held to the same standards in family court we would have no issue.
BUT….this is NOT the case in family court.
Mothers and children are dying at the hands of their former abuser thanks to family court ordered visitation abuse. Maternal deprivation is NOT acceptable any longer.
So as the old Monty Pythons Flying Circus recurring joke goes….Whats brown and sounds like a bell?
The idiot above.
Speaker’s Corner: Does the Warshak workshop work?
By Jan Weir | Law Times Publication Date: Monday, 19 April 2010
It can be put no better than the oft-reported quote of Dr. Sol Goldstein, who talked about the “scourge” of parental alienation in Canada.
Some commentators call it the “20/80” of the court, referring to the 20 per cent of the cases that take up 80 per cent of the time. There seems to be no effective solution.
Dr. Richard Gardner, a New York psychiatrist, proposed a theory in the early 1980s that some alienation was irrational in that the accepted parent had brainwashed the children to the extent that the cure was to deprogram them of their rejection of the other parent.
Enter Richard Warshak into the Ontario court system. He’s a psychologist from Texas who claims to have developed a four-day workshop at a cost of up to $20,000 to cure the irrational brainwashing type of alienation.
Only a handful of psychologists have training in the techniques. In some cases, the courts will order children into the custody of the rejected parent, who will then have them take the program. Sometimes, the court suspends contact with the accepted parent for a period of time.
One criticism of this theory is that it gives a tremendous amount of power to the health professional in that a misdiagnosis takes away the children’s right to object to certain parental behaviour and subjects them to an intimidating experience. The risk of that scenario increases when one parent is wealthy and the other is unable to retain an expert.
But how successful is the workshop? While it’s been around for 17 years, there hasn’t been an independent study to decide the criteria for evaluating success, monitor the cases, and compile the data.
The courts have developed rules of evidence on expert opinions because judges are intelligent amateurs who don’t want to pass judgment on the validity of scientific theories. Thus, they are gatekeepers. For the first test of admissibility, they rely on the scientific community to determine whether the theory or technique is generally acceptable. There is no such evidence for the Warshak workshop.
Additionally, because there is a recognition that a novel theory or technique may not have been in existence long enough, the courts have developed four criteria to admit such evidence. The Warshak workshop doesn’t meet the criteria for novelty because it has been around for more than 17 years.
However, even if it were novel, the reliability of the evidence on its validity wouldn’t meet the four-part test. That’s because the first element is that it’s capable of being and in fact has been tested. Here, while the data is available for an independent test, none has taken place according to generally accepted scientific principles.
Warshak has recently published a study he did himself claiming the workshop is highly effective. But this work doesn’t meet generally accepted principles for a valid scientific study.
The guarantee of validity is independent confirmation or repeatability by other scientists. The history of science is replete with examples of very intelligent and respected scientists who have made claims that, after review by other experts, have proven unreliable.
There is enough data for short- and long-term evaluation of the Warshak workshop. One of the concerns is whether, even if the data confirms the claims, the workshop works for the right reasons.
The procedure may be so intimidating that it may frighten the children into submission. Some of them are now old enough to give feedback on such concerns.
I know of the results of just two orders from Ontario judges sending children to the Warshak workshop. One is J.K.L. v. N.C.S. The other is a case widely reported in the media in which an older brother sought to intervene to get custody of his brothers after an associate of Warshak sent them to a hospital psychiatric department alleging they had mental health issues.
The report in The Globe and Mail on the case noted that the psychiatrist at the hospital said there was nothing wrong with the boys.
Judges appear to be ignoring the Mohan general acceptance test out of desperation for a solution to this seemingly unsolvable problem. But will this prove justified?
Given that judges are making these orders and there is now local data, a study could keep track of these cases. It’s an important issue for which a research grant would likely be available.
Warshak may also reach into his altruism to make his techniques known to the health profession at large. Although it would entail a significant financial sacrifice, doing so would bring the benefit of these methods to people of more modest means and permit evaluation of them according to the usual cautionary measures of science.
The idea isn’t to deny that the workshop is effective. Warshak’s claims may in fact be correct. What’s missing is the proper scientific basis to support them and hence their admissibility in court.
There is no doubt in my mind that Warshak believes in his theory and techniques. However, as Ontario’s recent experience has shown, belief in a beneficial theory can be harmful. The only safe control on such good intentions is an independent review by the scientific community.
Jan Weir is a Toronto lawyer who was involved in S.G.B. v. S.J.L., a case in which a judge overturned an arbitrator’s award ordering participation in Warshak’s program. That matter is to go back to court for a new trial.
But notice that the authorities have a Plan. More anger management for abusers! Which of course, has been PROVEN to be ineffective....
Grace Krejci
Calls from West Allis police to domestic violence hotline so far in 2010, second-most in Milwaukee County.
Calls from city of Milwaukee police, tops in the county.
Calls from Cudahy police, third in the county.
Source: Sojourner Family Peace Center
West Allis — The murder-suicide that caused the deaths of a young couple here last week came just as the city was preparing to step up its attack on domestic violence.
Matthew Krejci, 27, was under a judge's orders - issued when he was convicted of violating a restraining order his wife had sought - not to have contact with her, or with firearms. And his wife, Grace, 23, had been a client of Sojourner Family Peace Center, which advocates for domestic violence victims.
That didn't prevent Krejci from killing his estranged wife before turning the gun on himself.
According to the medical examiner's report, Grace Krejci's father found the couple's bodies in an upstairs bathroom of the house where she lived with a sister and brother-in-law. The couple's 3-year-old daughter was found cowering in a nearby bedroom, the report says. The father had come to check on them after their 5-year-old son's school called because the boy hadn't been picked up.
Grace's father, Jerry Winiarski of New Berlin, said he was fearful for his granddaughter when he found the bodies of her parents.
"I was so panic stricken," Winiarski said. "I was hoping it wouldn't be a third body. I was so grateful to God that I heard her voice and she came to Grandpa."
West Allis Mayor Dan Devine says that although the city was already planning to upgrade domestic violence prevention before the Krejci murder-suicide, "It kind of reinforces the need for it."
Grace Krejci's death was the year's first homicide in West Allis, city officials say, but domestic homicides have been trending up in Milwaukee County and statewide in the past two years. This fall, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence reported that 67 people died in 2009 in domestic violence related homicides - far more than any other year since the group started tracking them in 2000.
Tony Gibart, a spokesman for the coalition, said the group doesn't keep a running count of such deaths statewide during the year. But in Milwaukee County, he said, where they're easier to track, there have been 17 or more such deaths this year, already eclipsing last year's total of 12.
West Allis Police Chief Michael Jungbluth and Devine say their city of 60,000 experiences much more domestic violence that doesn't result in deaths.
And the police chief says that even if a new program to reach out to first-time offenders was in place, it may not have done anything to prevent the Krejci tragedy.
But they see domestic violence as a growing problem in their community.
Jungbluth cites statistics compiled by Sojourner Family Peace Center of calls to the group's domestic violence hotline by police that show the city second only to Milwaukee in the county for such calls. And its numbers are far ahead of those from other suburbs.
Through October, the city logged 505 calls to the hotline, up 9% from last year at this time. Milwaukee had 5,344 calls in the same period - down a bit from 2009 - and the community in third place was Cudahy, with just 81 calls, also down from last year.
In an interview in October, and again in the aftermath of the killings last week, Jungbluth and Devine said they wanted to set up a program that would catch domestic violence offenders early on and help turn them around. The program would target people picked up for disorderly conduct in domestic violence cases and require them to participate in a meetings that would assess their problems and then assign them to such things as anger management.
Jungbluth and Devine also plan to appoint an advisory committee of experts on domestic violence - including representatives of the district attorney's office, a member of the clergy, and possibly even a domestic violence victim.
These new initiatives would join other efforts already in place. West Allis has long had a protocol in place requiring its officers who make domestic violence arrests to offer the victims a cell phone connection to the Sojourner hotline.
And it also has had an on-staff victim advocate, Holli Stephens, since 2002 - first paid by grant money and in recent years, as part of the department's budget.
Carmen Pitre, co-executive director of the Sojourner center, said her organization had a long partnership with West Allis.
"They have always taken this issue seriously" she said.
The new program is "an opportunity for the Police Department to take the issue to more of a community level," Jungbluth said. "It shouldn't all just be on the shoulders of the Police Department."
Court documents and an interview with Matthew Krejci's lawyer, Jim Martz, showed that the troubles that led to the deaths started more than a year ago.
Grace Krejci filed for divorce July 10, 2009, and as Martz put it: "He did not want this divorce."
Martz also said, "Matt had a significant history of anxiety and depression."
In the 16 months since the divorce papers were filed, Matthew Krejci was issued a harassment restraining order, and then was convicted of violating the order by repeatedly calling and texting his wife - for which he was given 15 months of probation and ordered to have no contact with his wife. The orders, issued in May, were still in effect last week, a Department of Corrections spokesman said.
Martz said Krejci attempted suicide at least once, adding that his parents sought to have him treated for his emotional problems.
In the most serious attempt, he drank antifreeze to wash down an overdose of the anti-anxiety drug Xanax while he was caring for his 3-year-old daughter - and was charged with child-neglect, according to a Waukesha County criminal complaint.
Martz said the couple's divorce was going to become final Dec. 2.
On Monday, Grace Krejci's mother, Christine Winiarski, read a statement from the family over the phone:
"We are just beginning to experience the reality of our pain and sorrow, but at the same time we hold onto the joy of knowing that she is now safe with our Savior. . . .
"Praise God the babies are safe."
And though Matthew Krejci's family did not want to be interviewed, his sister Anne Krejci said: "We're grieving for both of them."
__._,_.___
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 20, 2010
Wailuku, MAUI - At 8:00am on Monday, November 22, 2010, domestic violence survivor, Maria Styke-Marquez, will be walking into Judge Keith Tanaka's Second Circuit courtroom where, according to documents filed by the perpetrator's attorney, Mimi DeJardins, the judge will grant her abuser's request to permanently relocate to Minnesota with the former couple's 2 1/2 year-old daughter, removing her not only from the island of her birth, but from access to her mother.
The child's father, Bruce Anthony Sotelo Jr., was convicted and held in jail for beating a pregnant Ms. Styke-Marquez so severely in 2007 that the 4 month-old baby she was carrying died as a result of the attack that left Ms. Styke-Marquez with a concussion, broken ribs, cracked teeth, a split lip and contusions all over her body.
According to Hawaii State Statute 571-46(9) perpetrators of family violence are not candidates for either joint or sole custody of their children, yet in September 2010, Judge Tanaka inexplicably reversed his initial ruling that granted Ms. Styke-Marquez full physical/legal custody of their daughter and in contradiction of the statute, gave full physical/legal custody of the little girl to the man who put her mother in the hospital.
The case has caught the attention of several state lawmakers such as House Human Services Chair, Representative John Mizuno (Kalihi) and Domestic Violence Survivor Advocate, Dara Carlin, who said she is absolutely outraged by the situation. "Domestic violence victims flee their abusers in full faith that the system will protect them and their children from further abuse and trauma once they've fled and laws have been put firmly in-place to ensure this. That a family court judge can choose to disregard and override a state statute that protects those at-risk is simply unconscionable" Ms. Carlin states.
Research shows that 70% of batterers who request custody receive it, leading to 58,000 children per year who are forced to live with their identified abusers.[1] Batterers are over 6 times more likely to sexually abuse their children.[2]
[1] www.leadershipcouncil.org
[2] Bancroft, Lundy and Silverman, Jay, The Batterer as Parent, Sage Publications, 2002
Financially devastated from the litigation her abuser has put her through, Ms. Styke-Marquez, unable to afford an attorney, will walk into the courtroom alone to face her abuser (who as recently as November 19th has a criminal contempt charge lodged against him), his attorney (who is also a Per Diem judge) and a judge who has already ruled against her and state statute. "My last and only hope to save my daughter is to call public attention to what's going on and I'm not the only one this is happening to - I know so many other domestic violence survivors who have lost custody of their children to their perpetrators as well which only tells me that this is no small problem. I'm a protective parent, not a perfect one, and never tried to keep our daughter from her father so I can't understand how this is being allowed to happen" says Ms. Styke-Marquez.
Contact: Dara Carlin at breaking-the-silence@hotmail.com or on Oahu at 218-3457.
Video's and Documentaries http://vodpod.com/ampp
PBS: Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories
http://vodpod.com/watch/3314727-8-2008-bts-wmv?u=ampp&c=ampp
Family Court Crisis Our Children at Risk
http://vodpod.com/watch/3586260-family-court-crisis-our-children-at-risk-silent-no-more?u=ampp&c=ampp
RESOURCES:
http://rightsformothers.com/
http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/
~~~~
Another one of the commenters with me on the Huffington Post whose comments were also refused has written about this on RH Reality Check. Please go to the website here and comment…the comments are starting to include Mens Rights Advocates who discount claims of domestic violence as false and “domestic violence is 50/50″ drivel so common from them. We know men suffer from domestic violence, but the actual numbers are about 85/15 women victims versus men victims. Nobody…absolutely nobody… should suffer from domestic violence. But to hide and deny it, as well as giving labels to protect abusers, is ABSOLUTELY wrong. The Huffington Post and Richard Warshak need to know that, although I highly suspect they do. The money is just too good in the “parental alienation” scam to ignore.
HuffPo’s Divorce Section: No Room for Reason on Domestic Violence?
By Joan Dawson
November 17, 2010 – 8:21am
The Huffington Post, in an effort to beef up its divorce section, is featuring controversial psychologist and author, Richard Warshak. In his first column “Stop Divorce Poison,” Warshak speaks of the equally controversial topic of parental alienation (PA); he or HuffPo have censored comments made by domestic violence advocates and survivors, and many of the remaining comments espouse misinformation, stereotypes, and sexist remarks.
Why should this concern women and those in the reproductive rights community?
“Parent Alienation,” the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent, is dangerous because it casts doubt on mothers’ claims of child abuse; the more she tries to protect her child and gather evidence, the more she exhibits “parental alienation.” If she fails–and she’ll face an uphill battle fighting bias, paying exhorborant fees, and fearing for her child(ren)’s safety trying to succeed–she can be fined, jailed and/or she could lose custody. PAS can and has turned the table on women trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. (Several cases that have received media attention can be found here, here, and here.
We fight for rights during pregnancy; we can’t leave women in the dust after they deliver. Villifying a protective mother, jailing her or taking her offspring is the worse you can do to a woman – abusers understand this, it’s time we do, too.
Warshak and the idea of PA
Warshak starts off with, “Mother Theresa does not marry Saddam Hussein.” But then we would have to ask, what was Hussein’s wife like?, because Warshak is making a comparison between spouses. Perhaps she was no Mother Theresa, but surely she wasn’t as evil as Saddam. Already we have an imbalance. All human beings can exhibit evil or wrong-doing, but not all humans are equal in this respect, as Warshak wants us to believe. Some are worse than others. And while women are far from perfect, many women in abusive relationships fall in love with a guy only to find out months or years later that he is abusive. Abusers, unfortunately, don’t come with a sign on their forehead.
Warshak then explains that parents who alienate their child(ren) cannot “harness the emotions unleashed by divorce and they exhibit “rage,” “enlist children as allies,” and use “bad-mouthing, lies, exaggerations…,” which Warshak likens to political mud-slinging campaigns. Some parents may deliberately or inadvertently denigrate the other parent. This may be evident in their parenting skills, but the main problem with PA is that it’s indistinguishable from the fear that comes from an abusive situation and can harm protective parents while rewarding abusive ones.
Jay Silverman’s study at Harvard, as reported in Newsweek, found 54 percent of custody cases were in favor of the batterer and nearly every case used parental alienation to counter the claims of abuse.
Warshak’s belief that “abused children cling tightly to their abuser” must explain why he seeks to reunite children with potential abusers then. Warshak runs a “treatment facility” in Texas that, for the whopping price tag of $40,000, reunites child(ren), at times forcibly, with the denigrated parent. I’ve included a link to a case in Canada, where an alienated mother, who had the financial resources, sought to reunify with her sons at his center. Note Warshak never actually met the sons but called it alienation nonetheless.
Domestic violence advocates and censorship
The domestic violence community, along with many major medical and psychological associations, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, rejects PA as a legitimate diagnosis. At least eight of us, representing domestic violence advocates and survivors, tried to post comments on Warshak’s article explaining our position. While a few posts remained, most, in our supposition, were deleted because they disagreed with the author. One advocate was banned. Apparently, this is not the first time people have complained about the comment section of the Huffington Post.
Nearly all the comments were citations to research, quotes and other factual information, including how PAS does not meet the standard of scientific reliability, about Warshak’s reunification center and its $40,000 price tag, and quotes from experts in the field, among other comments calling into question his analysis.
I included this quote from Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence and a former President of the Amercian Psychiatric Association:
“PAS is junk science at its worst…Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent’s own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors.”
Mothers have informed us that when they make a good faith allegation, it is they who are doubted (see, for instance, cases such as those of Katie Tagle, where the judge called her a liar, gave the ex custody, and her baby was murdered by its father; or Amy Castillo, another woman who was denied a protective order and lost three children when her ex-husband drowned them in a hotel bathtub) and labeled abusive or ordered to undergo a polygraph test or psychiatric evaluation. The stereotype that women lie to gain the upperhand in custody cases, which occurs in only a fraction of cases, has more branding power than do mere facts. According to research, men in cases where both abuse and custody are in question actually make more false claims, according to research. The American Bar Associationprovides further information on custody myths.
Poisonous comments
Many of us understand the origins of PA are rooted in the misogynist and pro-pedophilia attitudes of Dr. Richard Gardner, who thought the mass sexual-abuse hysteria was caused by vindictive women falsely accusing fathers of abuse. (8) In reality, many protective parents feel as if this were a witchhunt against them — mothers are not trusted, they’ve cast a spell on the kids to hate Dad –they must be punished! Jail them! Fine them! Take away their children! Like the “witches” of long past who would either sink or swim, mothers are in a similar bind – if they report abuse, they’re punished for being an alienator; if they don’t report it, they can be punished for failure to report.
Meanwhile, many of the alienating behaviors readers commented on can be attributed to personalities, parenting skills, or, in cases of abuse, domestic violence by proxy, whereby one parent continues to exert control and/or abuse over another. One advocate keeps a blog of parents that kill their child(ren) in cases pertaining to divorce and custody. She’s up to 136. Despite the fact that these marriages ended, the domestic violence continues and these deaths would be classified as domestic violence fatalities.Overwhelmingly, these killings are committed by men – with no tango partner, Mr. Warshak. In other words, party of one.
You can tell from the comment section how much these guys like women. If they got together, I can just imagine them in a big smokey room with leather chairs giving each other the wink and nod about the comment pertaining to Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein. The idea of ‘equality with a vengeance’ comes to mind.
One poster, Target NoMore, refers to those opposing PA as a ‘special interest group’ that doesn’t want to stop the problem. People who want to protect children are not “special interest groups.”
If HuffPo is going to feature controversial authors whose work is not only rejected by the scientific community but also puts children at risk, why not at least allow evidence to be introduced in the comments section? What are they afraid of?
Read more here : http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/11/17/huffpos-divorce-section-room-reason-domestic-violence
NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies - 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances...
THESE CASES ARE NOT "TRAGEDIES". THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:
Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN
KANSAS
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vacuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/%7Efreepress/7-12-01-8.html
Google M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Court Appointed Child Abusers in Topeka Kansas
It’s monetary--- it’s all about the money.
CA3- Children Against Court Appointed Child Abusers the CACA STOPS here.
Stop The Gravy Train—you’ll stop the Child Trafficking by way of family Courts.
OUTRAGES: Bad decisions, Bad judges, Bad experts, Bad ethics, Bad ...
Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN
Attorney
Posted: November 16, 2010 03:18 PM
Read More: Child Abusers , Childrens Custody , Custody Battles , Human Rights , Mother's Rights , U.S. Courts, Women's Rights , Politics News
Ten mothers, one victimized child now an adult, and six organizations working in the field of child abuse and family law filed a petition on April 10, 2007, at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts awarding custody or unsupervised visitation to child abusers and molesters. The petitioners come from Kansas, Georgia, California, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Nevada.
Ten years earlier, on Mother's Day, May 11, 1997, a group of mothers who lost custody of their children gathered on the steps of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, D. C. Entitled "Give Us Back Our Children," the event was held to represent the increasing numbers of women who are losing custody of their children to batterers and child abusers. This event, co-sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the House of Ruth, My Sister's Place, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), brought attention to the plight of women and children unfairly victimized by the legal system, and to dispel the myth that women always win custody of their children. That was 13 years ago. The situation today is even worse. The stories of these petitioners are not unique. They are the tip of the proverbial iceberg indicating a grave and growing injury to human rights.
Wendy Titelman is one of the petitioners. Her attorney, Richard Ducote, who has represented battered women for years, said:
After twenty years in family law courtrooms throughout the country, I confidently say that no woman, despite very abundant evidence that her child has been sexually molested by her ex-husband or that she has been repeatedly pummeled by the violent father of her child, can safely walk into any family court in the country and not face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present the evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected.
Sol Gothard, Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisiana said:
There are very few times in law when you can state anything categorically, but I can certainly say that beyond any doubt whatsoever, the problem expressed by Wendy Titelman in this book is epidemic and widespread, and it has been this way for the forty-four years that I have been involved with the legal system.
Karen Anderson has been fighting for her children for 17 years. Her son Jeff Hoverson, now of age, has joined in the petition. He recounts that the day he was taken from his mother at 10 years of age was traumatizing:
So now I had no brothers, no pets, I was 3-4 hours from my home, and again... no mom. This is when I was damaged so severely emotionally... No one told me anything about my mom or why I was at my dad's or why we were in San Francisco on a sidewalk. I asked but received no answers. I felt that if I wasn't told anything that I was worthless to everyone. I was made into a possession rather than a child.
The facts of the individual cases are a catalog of proven domestic violence and child sexual molestation ignored by the courts. The mothers are labeled as mentally ill or having Parental Alienation Syndrome, though PAS has absolutely no scientific validity and is used in a very discriminatory way to remove children from mothers who try to protect the children and themselves from violence and abuse. Yet in these petitioners' cases it is used over and over to punish the protective parent.
This problem has been brought to the attention of family court systems, states and the national government all to no avail. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. 20 years later, it continues unabated. Legislation has been passed. Judges have been educated. Still it continues. Thus petitioners are turning to international courts to protect their human rights and the rights and safety of their children.
While state courts are responsible for custody cases, the federal government is responsible to ensure that their judicial systems operate in accordance with the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The specific articles the petitioners claim to have been violated are:
Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
The courts place the children directly in danger without regard to their right to life, liberty or security of person. In addition, often the arrangements made for visitation are unsafe to the mother as well.
Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.
The gender discrimination both in the courts in general and in custody cases in particular has been known, studied and proven for years. The gender bias studies in the 1980's showed bias that has never been corrected. The studies of custody have shown that it is a complete myth that women get custody over men or that men are disfavored in family court. It is such a pervasive myth that years of litigation and proof has not shaken it -- to the harm of the victims of violence.
Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.
Litigants, especially mothers, who report child abuse are punished with jail or the loss of custody of their children. The protective parents are in a Catch-22 situation. If they do not protect their children, they are charged with failure to protect and the child protection agencies take their children. If they do act to protect, the courts put the children directly into the arms of the abuser.
Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.
Often the protective parents who report abuse are labeled mentally ill or diagnosed with such imaginative syndromes as parental alienation or munchhausen's by proxy. Often they are ordered into counseling or in the case of one petitioner, taken to the mental hospital.
Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.
By separating the protective parents from their children for no valid reason, the parent is denied the right to establish a family. Some of these petitioners have not seen their children for years. Every single petitioner was denied contact with their child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.
Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.
Often battering begins during pregnancy, yet special protection is not afforded the mothers, even when they have an order of protection. Much research has proven that children of abusers are likely to be abused themselves and have a higher rate of sexual molest. Yet courts continue to refuse to protect the children. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the DeSheney case that the state does not owe any right of protection to children even when they know of the abuse and have in fact placed that child in that home with the father. This is in plain violation of the Declaration.
Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.
The lack of due process in family court is legion. Ex parte hearings and communications, decisions without hearings, refusal to admit the mother, refusal to admit evidence of violence is rampant in the cases and violates the most basic principles of due process. Little attention or time is given to these decisions that shape a child's life forever.
Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.
The gender bias studies of the 1980's showed that courts are not competent when dealing with women. Unfortunately, things have not improved. In spite of training, legislation and lobbying, judges continue to ignore statutes that mandate no custody to abusers. The petitioners have tried to hold the judges accountable by appeal or disciplinary procedures, all to no avail.
Article XXV. No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.
The many children who are put directly into harms way by being placed with an abuser or molester are deprived of their liberty. When courts ignore evidence of violence, they are not following pre-existing law. It is commonplace for judges to completely ignore state statutes that mandate that custody will not go to a perpetrator thereby violating state law as well as putting children in danger.
Article XXX. It is the duty of every person to aid, support, educate and protect his minor children, and it is the duty of children to honor their parents always and to aid, support and protect them when they need it.
These petitioners have tried to protect their children. It is the courts that have prohibited them. The cost to both child and parent is overwhelming and devastating.
The Gonzales case, also filed at the InterAmerican Commission, illustrated in their hearing the failure of the American justice system to protect battered women and children. That case dealt with the failure of the police department. This case deals with legal abuse -- the failure of the legal system, the courts, the guardians ad litem, the attorneys for the children, the state protective agencies to both follow the law and to protect the helpless children who face the horror of violence daily.
Unfortunately, the IACHR has not moved on the case. After more than three years, they have not even examined it or forwarded it to the U.S. government. How many children have to suffer before justice is done?
FILED IN: BAD JUDGES, CALIFORNIA, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES,CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILDREN WHO WITNESS ABUSE, CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC ABUSE,DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FATHERS RIGHTS, JUDGE SCOTT GORDON, MEL GIBSON, OKSANA GRIGORIEVA,BATTERED WOMEN, CHILD CUSTODY FOR ABUSERS
Again, another battered woman speaks out, and the judge threatens to take custody of her baby from her. Shame on Judge Scott Gordon and all the other judges that want to hide how women are being beaten and abused. My money is on her losing her baby to that dangerous, drunken asshole. That is standard operating procedure in family court now.
And by the way, why is it a “custody war?” Drunken asshole Mel Gibson threatened to kill her…he ASSAULTED her…he should be in prison. Why should custody be any question? Because abusers are getting custody of children in family court. Bet there is some $$$ involved too. This MUST stop!
Oksana Grigorieva Defies Judge with Larry King
11/14/2010 7:40 AM PST by TMZ Staff
Oksana Grigorieva has defied the judge in her custody war with Mel Gibson by taping an interview with Larry King Saturday night, TMZ has learned … and it’s Oksana’s opening salvo in “speaking out on behalf of battered women.”
Oksana did the interview (which was supposed to only last a half-hour but ended up an hour) along with one of her lawyers, Marty Garbus — this despite Judge Scott Gordon telling Oksana that if she did media, she might pay when it comes to awarding custody … this according to Oksana’s team.Sources connected with Oksana tell TMZ she did the interview because “she feels she’s been silent too long and feels bad for other battered women if she stays silent.” Sources tell TMZ Oksana is now working with a group called Peace Over Violence — an L.A.-based battered women’s group — and she’s planning a number of news conferences in the near future.
We’re told Larry King played portions of a number of the tapes Oksana secretly recorded, in which Mel goes crazy. King asks for her reaction to the various tapes.
And we’re told Oksana repeats over and over that she believes Mel is a great father, but he needs therapy to deal with his issues so he can safely be around Lucia.
Oksana is also working with a lobbying group in Sacramento — California Partnership to End Domestic Violence — on battered women legislation.
Imagine being amidst the horrible situation of having your child beat severely by his father and then having Warren County Kentucky Whores of the Court being the most evil and corrupt as one can imagine. One such Whore of the Court is Edin Smajlagic who posted vile comments on his public facebook profile. (see pic above)
Smajlagic is involved in the Kimberly Harris/Christian Coffey case that continues in Warren County. He denied the mothers dinner visit with Christian because he cant supervise what is discussed off site. Yet he allows abuser Steven Coffey a supervised visit at Pizza Hut with Sarah the foster mom on October 27.
After Smajlagic was exposed for his biased and frightening facebook posts he then contacted fellow blogger and posted threatening and bullying tactics http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/915402-1115201064903PM
Threatening a state employee? These are not threats....you have been weighed and measured....FAIL
Posted by BRING IT ON at 10:56 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
Labels: Christian Coffey, Edin Smajlagic, Family Court Corruption, Kentucky Court Whores,Kimberly Harris, Rice-Holderfield, Warren County Kentucky
People who aren't friends with Edin see only some of his profile information. If you know Edin personally, send him a message or add him as a friend.
"Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey": EDIN, WOW YOU WON'T LET US READ YOUR PAGE ANYMORE? OH WELL, WE PRINTED OFF YOUR ENTIRE PAGE TWO DAYS AGO BUDDY.
Meet Edin Smajlagic ( male ) who has denied Kimberly's dinner visit with Chrisitan because he can't supervise what is discussed off site. Yet he sure can supervise what is discussed offsite at Steven Coffey's dinner visit at Pizza Hut with Sarah the foster mom, and Christian that was held Oct 27.
JUST SOME GOOD OL BOYS Two hours of questioning of a minor child regarding the ownership of this blogs and many more is really showing how desperate this Judge court whore has become.
Rice-Holderfield sent out her goons Sheila Drake today to many persons homes, including Miss Kentucky International Elaine Bateman. What has become of the justice system that they are hell bent on jailing a mother for others taking the stance on this injustice?!
We hope you are proud of yourself by intimidating a child into submission, falsely accusing her of blogging the TRUTH…CPS worker Sheila and Police Officer Blevins. There is a special little place in hell for those who fail to protect and serve….not sure which level…I will have to get back to you on that. In the meantime I suggest you do some reading…. http://whoresofthecourt.com
Face Book Page: “Stop The Abuse of Christian Coffey”
VIDEO HERE: Corrupt Judge Catherine Rice Holderfild "Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey" Bowling Green,
Rene you can shut down the blog all you want. We took screen shots of everything that was out there and I am now publishing it for all to see.
Now for everyone to understand we must post the screen shots so they can see for themselves. So we will start with your blogger profile: 
Next we move in to your question in blogger/google help files: 
Now we have established that you are Rene we can move on to the blog posts (which sorry folks are no longer available but here are the screen shots of the alleged blog posts. This is the first one but it is extremely shrunk so hard to make out. I also zoomed in and took a second screen shot of the same post in order to show the actual wording: 
Now we have the second blog post made by Rene: 
And the third post: 
I am not sure which of these posts is more disturbing. You have here a woman who is a lawyer. But in the first post she publishes information about Claudine which should (whether true or not) be protected under medical confidentiality.
The second post contains more information about Claudine's alleged mental disorder (keep in mind folks that an abuser's biggest tool in his toolbox is to claim the mother is mentally ill or promiscuous or both).
The third post then contains the statement that the blogger is going to reveal Claudine's address to "both of her supporters". Claudine is and has been a participant in the safe at home address program. This is for victims of violence to be able to live in safety and not worry about future violence. Why on earth would a program administered by the state allow Claudine to be a participant if she is indeed lying about the abuse that happened?
There is a Facebook page created in Rene's honor. We ask on behalf of the creator that you join and help Claudine start the complaint process which will ultimately strip Rene Netherton of the privilege to practice law anywhere.
Hat Tip to "R" and thank you for your part in keeping the world safe from abusers and those who would support them.
Posted by Glenn's Cult? at 12:55 PM 
Labels: abuse, Abuse Victims, abused children, abused moms, abusive dad, Claudine Dombrowski, Halleck Richardson, Reneee Netherton
Courtesy Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate
Zahra, is unfortunately one of many children who died at the hands of decision that the family court made. From the late eighties when Ken Bryne introduced Gardner's concept of parent alienation deeming victims of violence and protective parents as "unfriendly parents" until now, so many women and children died at the hands of judges. Judges who werewarned by experts in family violence of such grave consequences if they continued to ignore victims. Anyone with common sense would look no further than the collection of analysis on familicides to know that by ignoring victims of family violence is playing with lives.
In Australia, two generations of victims have grown up through the system where there are now parents facing the same system that abused them as a child, now plaguing their children. The system that had always had the power to protect, but failed to do so for the sake of a cheap and quick service. Thats right, the lives of Australian women and childrenhave been hijacked in favor of a cheap and quick service that catersprimarily for men. Bright futures that could have been the one who cured cancer, solved our environmental crisis or made some other wonderful contribution to our community was lost in favor of a "cheap and quick" service. We don't know what Zahra Baker, Darcey Freemanor those whom in death remain nameless could have done for Australia and the wider global community. Whether the parent is a mother or a father abusing, there are signs and symptoms that the family court haveignored, despite so many that have spelled it out.
A task that victims and survivors alike should never have had to do in Australia was to lobby for a protection that should never have been robbed from them. A basic human right:
Arguably, mens rights groups claimed that such acts were a "right", but not when they are disproportionate to children's and womens rights. These "rights" deprived both children and mothers of basic human rights. The situation was so appalling that it got a mention in a UN report against Australia.
The Family Law Amendment 2010 proposal is not only spot on, but it is vital not just in the value of life, but the value of Australia's future. The reason why Australia thrives is because so many of these women work hard to raise these children despite all odds and some of these children have made great contributions to the Australian community and the rest of the world.
Much anger, action and outrage has been raised about the deaths that occurred in 9/11, but if all of the deaths of women and children from family violence had occurred in one location - it would be the greatest act of terrorism in history. The question is why it is not as important, why action was not taken sooner and why women and children are continuing to endure abuse at the order of the family court or perhaps, "Her Majesties Pleasure".
The Australian Liberal Party, a rogue right wing cell that lost all meaning of "liberal"(except in global trade concepts), is beyond the phrase, "Out of touch" when they vow publicly to "fight" basic protection measures desperately needed for women and children. No matter how nicely put it, we all know now that its happening. It cannot be denied. there are too many that have been affected by these laws, too many that have been affected by child abuse and violence. Everyone knows and cares about at least someone that has gone through it and the campaigns simply spell it out.
As much as the liberals might have wet dreams about a totalitarian society like 1984, its just not going to happen. The mindset behind control was never an intelligent choice in the first place, it was nothing more than reviving the retro-thug from the dark ages. The art of surviving great challenges and pursuing noble endeavors is the only true intelligence and one that cannot be tested by academia, but of action and results within a collective sense of integrity.
If you wish to add your name to a historical change for the better, you can sign the petition here:
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40638.html
Posted by Melanie at 10:35 PM
Labels: Australian Liberal Party, Family Law Amendments 2010, Zahra Baker
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/DVP.html
As more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are wrongly embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place. False accusations of “parental alienation" are often used by batterers to gain custody and to defend against accusations of abuse.
Some unfortunate women after years of enduring domestic violence have lost custody to the batterers who abused them. In these cases, batterers have made good on their threat to attack their ex-partner in the place she is the most vulnerable—by taking her children away from her. After separation, these batterers continue to wage their campaign of manipulation and abuse by attempting to convince involved children that their mothers never loved them. Looking for a way to describe their batterers' behavior, some mothers have called what their batterer is doing "parental alienation syndrome."
In reality, what these women are describing from their ex-partners is better termed Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.
When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother -- in a way she cannot resist.
DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get them because they are unloved).
DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is irrelevant to him.
This is very different from "parental alienation syndrome" as described by the late Richard A. Gardner. Dr. Gardner described PAS as an internal process by which a child aligns themselves with a preferred parent to protect themselves from the divorce conflict. “PAS” is conceptualized as a psychological process of identification with a parent who, according to the theory, encourages this identification at the expense of the other parent.
PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing to encourage the identification. In contrast, perpetrators of DV by Proxy are very conscious of what they are doing. Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and often illegal. These behaviors include: battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, along with other similar overt behaviors.
The most dangerous aspect of Gardner's PAS theory is that that the alienating parent's behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable. In other words, the behaviors that are supposed to cause the alienation are assumed to be happening without any proof that they have actually occured. As many women have discovered this makes a charge of "alienation" almost impossible to defend against.
While Gardner's theories regarding PAS have been shown to be overly general and have not been supported by careful research, behaviors seen in DV by Proxy can be readily observed. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and planned; many are illegal, and if the child is given the freedom to talk, will be described in great detail by the child.
If the child's formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" or traumatic attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as "alienation".
A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded here.
For further information:
According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer. Read rest of Article here: http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/1-research-articles-family-court-bias-custody-abuse-battered-moms/41-how-many-children-are-court-ordered-into-unsupervised-contact-with-an-abusive-parent-after-divorce
