Eleven years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer HAL RICHARDSON

HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ALL ABUSERS and ENABLERS (aka child traffickers) that have and are continuing the  abuse by Hal Richardson. With the help of the local CourtWhores, M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Judge David Debenham, Don and Jason Hoffman

 

Eleven years ago today Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to a convicted batterer on a ‘snail mail’  from crooked Judge Richard Anderson. He made a ‘deal’ and without motion from either party, without hearing he simply on his own ‘switched custody’ from Mother to ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON.

Mother Claudine Dombrowski has had little to no contact with her daughter since this illegal ‘action’ and ruling was made. The Judges following after this decision could have at anytime corrected a very wrong very unethical very damaging ruling.

 

Instead, they continued ‘litigation abuse’ of a battered mother and forced her only child- HER daughter to live with out her mother and in constant fear.

[scribd id=43805172 key=key-18j7hcjx5kgmiopq3ylk mode=list]

2000 July 31-- Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON

HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS ETC…

WHAT KIND A EVIL BASTARD WOULD HURT HIS CHILD SO BADLY BY TAKING HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER? RIKKI DOMBROWSKI THE WORLD IS APPALLED, KANSAS IS SICK. THIS MAN WILL KNOW JUSTICE ONE DAY—GOD WILL JUDGE ALL WHO HELPED TO KEEP YOU SEPERATED FROM YOUR LOVING MOTHER.

GOD’S JUDGEMENT DAY—AND TOPEKA KANSAS WILL BURN

95LA014502-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1OR
97LA009121-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
98LA006122-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
92CV000432-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96CV000937-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
92LA000089-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
96LA012692-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97LA017898-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97U 000055-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,1D
90LA007629-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,1D
97LA018158-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
96LA003402-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
98U 000141-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
04SC000200-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,1D
03C 000086-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,184D
95U 000500-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
03L 010117-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
05L 001833-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95SC000448-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95LN000161-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1OP
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
94SC000355-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
96LA019246-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
96LA000348-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97CV000960-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97LA011585-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,2D
08SC000096-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1P
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)2OE
97CV000778-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson...

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR...

3 p.

1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

Rene Netherton’s Threats exposed at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY , 2011

Video streaming by Ustream

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11918412

Rene watch through the 2nd presenter—you are famous!!

Let’s Defund FATHERHOOD Programs, Marriage Promotion Programs, All Faith-Based Funding

With the debt ceiling crisis and the uproar over what programs to cut it's a good time to email your senators & representative and tell them what programs you would like cut and what programs you want to keep.

Let's defund Fatherhood programs, marriage promotion programs, all faith-based funding (faith-based charities are funded by church contributions, which aren't taxed)

Find your senator http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find you representative https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

 

Obama (and Congress) you are killing children with the tax payer’s money. STOP FATHERHOOD FUNDING NOW!

Here is a sample letter that all can write:

YOUR OR YOUR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS
TODAY’S DATE
The Honorable YOUR CONGRESSMEMBER’S NAME
ADDRESS
Washington DC 20510

Re: Cut $500 Million from the Fatherhood Initiative and Hold Congressional Hearings

Dear YOUR CONGRESSMEMBER’S NAME:

I am writing to you today to urge you to cut five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) in funds administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services for Fatherhood Initiative programs.  http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/

These programs are designed to improve the lives of children by promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage, authorized under 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Public Welfare.

45 CFR Section 260.20  The TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) program  has the following four purposes:

(a) Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
(b) End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
(c) Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
(d) Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

45 CFR Section 263.2(a)(4)(ii) Pro-family healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities enumerated in part IV-A of the Act, sections 403(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 403(a)(2)(C)(ii) that are consistent with the goals at §§260.20(c) or (d) of this chapter, but do not constitute “assistance” as defined in §260.31(a) of this chapter….

(g) State funds used to meet the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grant match requirement may count to meet the MOE requirement in §263.1, provided the expenditure also meets all the other MOE requirements in this subpart.

Despite the stated positive goals, these programs lead to frighteningly negative outcomes for children. Goals of these funds are for fathers (especially ex-prisoners) to get jobs and pay child support. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/obama-visits-se-washington-to.html

Instead, gender-biased legal services are provided solely to fathers.  Opportunistic male batterers, molesters, felons and drug addicts seize the opportunity to use free legal services to avoid paying child support by gaining custody. This is the precise opposite of program goals.

On February 14, 2011, a non-custodial mother testified to Senate aides that she was refused legal services from an HHS federally funded grant program simply because she was a mother. This is an illegal use of federal dollars.http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/regixcomplaint.pdf

Approximately 70% of batterers who ask for custody receive custody.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

Federal funds fuel this litigation.  Because aggressive fathers are able to access free legal assistance through federal Fatherhood Initiative programs, fathers have a distinct advantage in family court.  Custody is given to fathers who have legal representation, regardless of whether they pose a risk to their children.

A self-represented mother has no chance against a father who is advised and represented by an attorney. The result: Every year, 58,000 children (including nursing infants) are taken away from safe mothers and given to violent, abusive men. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html

This does not improve the lives of children. Rather, it causes immeasurable harm to them. Children live in situations that would break a seasoned soldier. They are beaten and raped. At least one per week is killed.These programs also lead to widespread fiscal waste, fraud and abuse.

Due to the lack of oversight and clearly defined and monitored outcome measures, these funds are commonly misused. An example is the defunded access to visitation program in Amador County CA.  The program was designed to foster a relationship and ensure contact between children and non-custodial parents, and provide victim protection through supervised visits. Instead, the grant program manager (a family law facilitator who illegally represented a private client, an admittedly violent father) used federal funds to:

1) benefit her custodial father client, rather than the non-custodial victim mother and victim   children;
2) block the mother’s access to her children;
3) suppress clear evidence of domestic violence and child sexual abuse;
4) pay other individuals who she used as witnesses against the mother;
5) collect money from the father for legal representation while billing the access to visitation program $16,000.00 for the father’s litigation costs; and
6) pay $6,000.00 for a wine drinking event disguised as training.

This is one of many programs throughout the country that are subverting the intent of the law. A federal investigation is needed to determine whether this subversion by fatherhood programs is unintentional or deliberate.

During a time of deep fiscal crisis, this pork barrel project, replete with waste, fraud and abuse that produce outcomes that harm children, is a travesty that needs to be defunded. We urgently request you to cut the Fatherhood Initiative funds immediately.

We further request Congressional hearings to allow testimony on the damage done to children due to the failure of family courts, assisted by federally -funded legal services, to protect them from violent and incestuous fathers.

Sincerely,
YOUR SIGNATURE
YOUR PHONE AND EMAIL ADDRESS

What is Domestic Violence?

National Domestic Violence Hotline
1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Physical Abuse: Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, etc are types of physical abuse. This type of abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her.

Sexual Abuse: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to, marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.

Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual's sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem is abusive. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one's abilities, name-calling, or damaging one's relationship with his or her children.

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

Psychological Abuse: Elements of psychological abuse include  - but are not limited to - causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.

Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating.

Domestic violence not only affects those who are abused, but also has a substantial effect on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence, are among those seriously affected by this crime. Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to numerous social and physical problems, but also teaches them that violence is a normal way of life - therefore, increasing their risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers.

Sources: National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Center for Victims of Crime, and WomensLaw.org.

FATHERS RIGHTS to MURDER, MAIM and TORTURE their Wives and Children STOP THE FEDERALLY FUNDED GENOCIDE!!

After another tragedy of children being killed by their father in the context of high-conflict custody litigation, court professionals, fathers-rights’ leaders and others have been engaging in excuses including: inadequate evidentiary standards, or insufficient evidence or biases against mothers, to avoid blaming the courts.

As the founder of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice (NAFCJ), the oldest grass-roots national group of protective mothers (since 1993) with a data bank of more than 1,500 intake callers, I know of many mothers with mishandled cases worse than that of Silver Spring’s Amy Castillo, except for the lethal ending. Her estranged husband is held in the drowning deaths of their three children in a Baltimore hotel.

Many mothers not only lost all custody rights but all visitation rights. Judges and court professionals routinely disregard and proactively work against mothers who make abuse complaints against fathers. Even the mother’s own attorney will tell her to keep her mouth shut because nobody want to hear about abuse.

Omitted from the debate are important factors:

(1) Widespread use in custody litigation of the discredited pro-incest/anti-mother Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.), a custody evaluation methodology that purports to identify manipulation by one parent against the other parent.

(2) Steering to judges who are cross-affiliated to fathers’ rights leaders, facilitated by a secretive judicial group.

(3) Organized case-rigging to ensure abuse complaints by mothers are discredited.

(4) Use of federal HHS-ACF (Health And Human Services Department — Administration For Children And Families — Access-Visitation) program funds, intended for parental counseling and resolving disputes but instead diverted to pay for pro-father custody evaluations.

Knowledge of this pattern has come from sources such as fathers’ rights literature, feedback from whistleblowers, documents mistakenly placed in court files, and threatening remarks by fathers demanding the mother agree to their litigation terms: (e.g., You better agree to joint custody, because the judge is on my side and will never rule in your favor).

Judges handling these pro-father rigged cases leave a trail of evidence — such as refusing to hear witnesses against the father as being prejudicial, then ruling against the mother on false grounds that she lied about the abuse because she had no witnesses to support her complaint while ignoring the fact the judge refused to listen to the witness or read submitted medical documents.

Other dishonest tactics include signing emergency ex-parte custody changing orders for the father on frivolous grounds, such as he ‘fears’ the mother will abduct the child — after she files an abuse complaint against him with CPS (Child Protective Services) or police.

The court never gives the targeted mother the required counter-hearing to rebut the father’s claim. Her child is summarily removed from her home by police for an abduction that did not occur, or wouldn’t have been a violation of any court order, law or prior agreement, even if she took the child on a short out-of-state trip. Many of the affected mothers don’t see their child again for years.

A good example is the D.C. case of Lillian Porter, who lost custody of her 2-year-old boy to the biological father on the dishonest grounds she was incarcerated after abducting him.

She never married or cohabited with this father, who hadn’t paid her child support and had pressured her with threats into signing an out-of-court joint custody agreement. He next proceeded to destroy her ability to work and pay for child-care by calling the DC government and have her benefits terminated by having his high income added as a factor. She moved to live with relatives in Arizona, but returned after he threatened abduction charges. Despite flying back to DC and turning the child over to him at the airport, he continued to pursue abduction and custody when she was incarcerated in the DC jail and not allowed to attend any of the court hearings. He claimed and got sole custody on grounds the child was with him and she was unable to care for the child because she was incarcerated.

Nobody cared that the father’s abduction and custody grounds were bogus and contradictory. Fortunately after some time, she got the case reversed and now has primary custody again, but this devious father continues to litigate on various frivolous points.

Fathers’ rights groups coach men on stalking, harassment and sabotage tactics. A whistleblower at one of their visitation centers quit in disgust and told about the pattern of set-ups against the mother. The fathers’ rights men working at the center tell a mother the visitation time had been changed or canceled by the father, then quickly go to court with the cheating father to get him an emergency ex-parte custody switch claiming the mother refused to bring the child(ren) at the appointed time.

This is not happening by chance. HHS-ACF family program grants are used for monetary incentives and kickbacks. Some mothers obtained written or taped evidence of the collusion between fathers and judges.

The founder of a judicial association by Los Angeles, Calif., family court judges, started in 1982, was also the founder of the leading fathers’ rights group, and the two groups are still heavily cross-affiliated. In Maryland, the Montgomery County Family Court’s evaluation unit is headed by a member of this judicial association along with leaders of the fathers’ rights group.

Many other courts and people all over the country in this group are involved in training custody evaluators and using the anti-mother PAS methodology against protective mothers to discredit abuse complaints against fathers.

Men and their co-conspiring court professionals are running custody mills to deliberately fuel high-conflict litigation to justify billings to HHS-ACF fatherhood programs intended to resolve these problems with nonlitigious counseling and mediation and not for paying custody evaluators and fathers attorneys. They are essentially running a litigation racketeering scheme funded by the federal government.

Shouldn’t we doing something about this, including congressional oversight investigations and in-depth discussions with HHS officials to stop these program misuses?

Violent, Selfish Fathers vs. Violent, Selfish "Mothers on Trial"

Violent, Selfish Fathers vs. Violent, Selfish "Mothers on Trial"

Phyllis Chesler is (again) 100% right on the money. While the media fixates on Casey Anthony (or Susan Smith or Andrea Yates), hundreds of fathers massacre entire families and nobody outside the local media market even takes note. It IS a total double standard. Paternal violence is continually excused ("he was frustrated") while maternal violence is treated as prima facie evidence of maternal monstrousness.
See Dastardly Dads: http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com
See " Mothers on Trial. The Battle for Children and Custody,"http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Trial-Battle-Children-Custody/dp/1556529996/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1308166564&sr=8-2

Amplify'd fromwww.foxnews.com

During the time that Florida mother Casey Anthony was in custody and on trial, any number of American fathers, stepfathers, and live-in boyfriends killed their children.

Daily, the local and national media dutifully report awful examples of paternal cruelty and infanticidal violence.

Most recently, on June 30, 2011, a single Texas father, Carlos Rico, choked his four-year-old son, and then left him for dead; miraculously the boy lived. This father faces attempted murder charges. One wonders whether he will become a media sensation. He should. His only motivation seems to have been that his son’s very devoted stepmother left him and changed her Facebook status to “single.”

On June 13, 2011, a 37-year-old Maine father shot his wife and their two children (ages 12 and 13) inside their home. Angry and frustrated about an ongoing custody dispute, he resolved the matter by killing everyone, including himself.

On May 8, 2011, a Los Angeles father shot his girlfriend, their two five-year old twins, and then himself. Precious little ink has been spilled about this.

On April 19, 2011, an Arkansas father ran over his two children, ages 18 months and 4 years-old; he was arrested and was charged with two counts of capital murder. 
Nobody knows his name. No petitions have been launched, no demonstrations held. For the record, his name is Robert Carter and he is 23 years-old.
In addition, during this approximately two month period, if we are to believe the existing studies, an untold number of fathers abused their wives and children both physically and sexually.
However, the American public did not launch any vocal campaigns against any of these violent and abusive fathers or against fathers in general.
Why not? People expect men to be violent. It is a given. When male-on-male, male-on-female, or male-on child violence erupts, people are not all that surprised and they do not condemn all fathers for the crimes of a few. In general, people want to forgive male sinners, or at least to show them compassion.

This is not true where mothers are concerned. In general, once a mother is accused—merely accused—the accusation itself psychologically convicts her. Unconsciously and automatically, people presume that she is guilty, not innocent. Her sexual and reproductive history is held against her, as is everything else.
We tend to have double standards when it comes to parenting. We expect much less of fathers and are ready to reward them for doing very little or to forgive them for failing one or two or three obligations: marrying the mother of their children, economically supporting the family, “helping out” from time to time. We do not expect fathers to fight for custody and when they do we are quick to assume that there must really be something wrong with the mother and that the fighting father is heroic.
According to an original study included in the updated and revised second edition of "Mothers on Trial. The Battle for Children and Custody," which features eight entirely new chapters to honor its 25th anniversary—the kinds of fathers who battle for custody are wife batterers (62%) who willingly impoverished the mothers of their children (67%) and also kidnapped their children (37%). Few of the paternal kidnappers were ever found and when they were, they were rarely jailed or custodially punished. Paternal kidnappings continue to this day and are far more common than stranger kidnappings.
When mothers kidnapped their children (mainly in order to protect them from being beaten or repeatedly raped by their fathers), they were invariably hunted down, jailed for long periods, and punished with limited and supervised visitation.
Which brings me to Casey Anthony. I am not privy to any insider details about the case. Neither the jury nor I know who murdered poor Caylee.

I have never met the mother.

What I am familiar with is the lynch-like sentiments of strangers who wish this mother dead. Why? Because she is seen as a “slut?” This is not a capital crime.

Or, more to the point, because she did not report her child missing within minutes as any normal, caring mother would do? This behavior is quite upsetting, troubling, but it does not mean she murdered her daughter. It does mean that her anti-maternal behavior has upset many grownups.
Why are people so upset by what they see as her lack of maternalism? Just as we expect men to be violent, we do not expect women, especially mothers, to be violent, and certainly not violent towards their own young and helpless children. Mothers are seen as civilization’s last line of defense against violence and anarchy. We each personally feel endangered, we each identify with the murdered or abused child, and our fury at the mother knows no bounds.
All women, all mothers, are seen as caretakers, and if even one mother turns bad, our species and culture as a whole feels endangered.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion. She is the author of thirteen books, including the 25th anniversary edition of "Mothers on Trial" and may be reached at her website www.phyllis-chesler.com

Read more at www.foxnews.com

Vanderleest Victim Breaks Silence

http://www.politiscoop.com/component/content/article/35-last-24h-news/382-vanderleest-victim-breaks-silence.html

Senatorial Candidate VanderLeest ‘s Former Wife Speaks Out

Green Bay Wisconsin -- Today I had the opportunity to speak to Rachel Gerritsen, the former wife of David VanderLeest. VanderLeest is challenging Senator Dave Hansen in the 30th district recall election. I spoke to Rachel by phone and you can listen to the audio of the interview here. Below you can read the transcript. Rachel states that she is still living in fear of VanderLeest. Despite this Rachel was brave enough to set the record right by telling her side of the story.

Significant information came to light in this interview. Rachel countered the claim made by VanderLeest in many press statements that she willingly and freely recanted the domestic violence statement included in the police records. Rachel claims that VanderLeest wrote the statements and she signed them “to get back to my son”. Although Rachel didn't directly say, if you listen to her words carefully, it appears her son has been used as a pawn in an abusive game that VanderLeest has been playing for years.

Rachel also spoke of VanderLeest’s inability to handle his own finances, his inability to pay his taxes or to provide adequately for her son by buying him basics like shoes or even by providing a stove in his apartment so he is able to cook his son dinner.

When asked late last week by Politiscoop, VanderLeest claimed that he had no idea what the “Oconto Investigation” of him was about. Rachel however tells us that there has been a police report filed for child abuse against VanderLeest and that he is aware of it even though he has not yet been formally charged.

After we concluded the interview, I followed up with the Oconto Sheriff's department and inquired about the case status that Rachel referred to and was told the case is not closed and that charges could be pending. This may be an interesting twist to the Senate race. Can a candidate campaign from behind bars?

Politiscoop - How long were you and David married?

Rachel – 3 years

Politiscoop – You two had a son together. How do you feel about him using your son in the political ads for his Senate campaign?

Rachel – I think it should be absolutely separate, that whatever he is dealing with is his and my boy is only 7 years old and that should be his little childhood life. Not a political life, that’s how I feel.

Politiscoop – I know this is a hard subject, but he claims you recanted on the domestic abuse issue, is that true?

Rachel – Well I recanted, only to get back to my son.

Politiscoop – So this paper that he handed me in his interview from Marshfield, WI, I don’t see a date on it, but did you write that statement or did he?

Rachel – David wrote the statement and the only reason why I signed it was to move back to Green Bay to be closer to my son that is the absolute truth.

Politiscoop – Do you still feel threatened by David?

Rachel – Yes – especially after I give this interview.

Politiscoop – I appreciate your bravery, it is not often that people speak out against somebody that’s harmed them in that way so you’re a very brave woman, thank you. Recently we heard of an investigation in Oconto, of David VanderLeest. Any idea what that’s about?

Rachel – That has to have involved some abuse towards his son, but I really can’t give any more information on that but, I do have the police report, I do have proof of that but I can’t put it out there because it involves my son.

Politiscoop – I totally understand that, so when David claimed in an interview with me that he knows nothing about it and he has never been contacted that would be a lie?

Rachel – Well actually I don’t think he was ever served or anything like that but he does know what it was about obviously I mean, he definitely knows what it was about but he was never served, I guess is a word for it.

Politiscoop – Do you feel that David VanderLeest is fit to hold office, if not why?

Rachel – Absolutely not. Because he can’t even pay his own rent, his own taxes, or anything like that so how he thinks he can hold office, I just don’t even understand it. I mean even if you look at his clothes it doesn’t even look like they’re fit to be tied. Let’s put it that way.

Politiscoop – so he has problems with his own finances and he doesn’t have any business handling the peoples of Wisconsin finances basically.

Rachel – yeah.

Politiscoop: Do you know anything about how he lives? I understand he has custody of your son?

Rachel: No, he doesn’t have custody or my son. He has primary placement of my son which means that is my son’s address, but we have 50/50 custody, so that’s a lie.

Politiscoop: Oh, okay -- that is what he stated in his interview.

Rachel: Well he said primary placement which people think, but it is not. I have 50% custody of my son.

Politiscoop: Okay Great. That is something that he failed to disclose last time we spoke. Is there anything about your ex-husband that we don’t know, that we should know?

Rachel: I think they pretty much dug up everything that needed out. The taxes and … I don’t know that building that he lives in.

Politiscoop: And that building that he lives in and I was unaware until yesterday that he has tax issues.

Rachel: Well, I was too.

Politiscoop: Is he providing for your son?

Rachel: No.

Politiscoop: Not at all.

Rachel: No.

Politiscoop: Rachel, this is your time to tell your side of the story and you have answered these questions . . . and I commend you for that. Is there anything else you would like to say?

Rachel: Well, I would just like to say that I definitely do not think that he should be in office because he can’t even buy shoes for my son or anything else and I he doesn’t even have a stove for my son in his own apartment building.

Politiscoop: Oh my Goodness.

Rachel: The apartment building that he does not pay taxes on, so that is my statement.

Politiscoop: Rachel, I really appreciate you doing this interview today. I do wish you the best and we’ll all pray for your safety. Thank you very much.

Rachel: Thank you. And you have a good day.

Politiscoop: You too.

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations, Family therapy, Supervised Visits and other ‘profiteers’ in Family Court (mafia)

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

APA Guidelines for Evaluating Parental Responsibility - parenting evaluations - child custody

IMPORTANT NOTICE: here
ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTICE here
parenting parenting plan or time parental rights and responsibilities for MAIN ARTICLE see here
This webpage is: CUSTODY EVALUATOR QUOTES at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

---

AGENDAS · Doubting Child Sex Abuse Allegations · Doubting Women's Domestic Violence Allegations       ...but the MHP's Fears are Justified · False Memory Theory · Father's Rights (or anti-Mother) Custody Advocacy · Father's Rights Anti-Relocation Advocacy · Joint Custody in the Absence of Research · Parental Alienation Theory · Reluctance to Believe Mothers' Allegations, Believe Father's · "Sex Positivism" · Speculation about What Children Need · Speculation and Assumption When that Suits the Agenda       ...but Requiring Hard Research When it Doesn't             ...Such as in Battered Women's Surveys                   ...or Sibling Attachments                         ...or Post-Divorce Relocations BIAS IS RAMPANT · Conflicts of Interest CONFIRMATORY BIAS · The Data Must Be Wrong · The Mother and Children Must Be Wrong · The Treating Therapist Must Be Wrong GENDER BIAS, ANTI-MOTHER DISCRIMINATION · Bias Outright · Compare the Reactions · Bias Under the Guise of Gender Neutrality · "I Was Only Joking" · The great boob debate LACK OF EXPERTISE BY TRAINING · Lack of Decision-making Ability · Lack of Investigative Ability · Lack of Judgment · Lack of Expert Credentials in Relevant Area of Inquiry · Lack of Methodology · Just Not All That Swift LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE · Group Think · Not the Parenting Mavins You Might Think · Not the Research Mavins You Might Think

LACK OF SCIENCE · Clinical Experience · Directionless Curiosity · It's Just Not Science · It's Not Science -- But That's Okay if I Like It · Protecting Vested Interests (Work in the Court System) · Psychometric Testing of Custody Litigants LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF DUE PROCESS · Arrogance · Ignorance · Insistence on Keeping Underlying Data Secret · Just Don't Wanna Release That Report · Much Concern for the Copyright Claims of Test Publishers       ...but not for the Copyright Claims of Article Publishers · Paternalistic Attitudes Toward Litigants · Role Confusion and Power-hungry Incompetence · Self-interest above Due Process · Self-interest as the Highest Priority · Self-Protection Above All · Subverting Attorney-Client Privilege LOBBYING MAKE-WORK ON CAPTIVE CONSUMERS · Experimenting · Meddling and Social Engineering · Money, Money, Money · Parental Alienation Therapy · Parenting Classes · Parenting Coordination · Parenting Conjoint Therapy · Reunification Therapy · Treating Children Because of Parental Defects · Treating Perpetrators · Treating Victims · Trainings and Reviewings THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE · "Do a Bonding Assessment" · "Do a Psycho-Sexual Evaluation" Erroneous Belief in Benefit Where None Exists. Isn't it Time We Ditched this Bad Idea?

Arizona's proposed child custody changes explore 'Coercive Control'

Arizona's proposed child custody changes explore 'coercive control'

An interim legislative committee is crafting pioneering child custody measures that promise to result in a collision between groups advocating for victims of domestic violence and advocates for fathers' rights.

The most dramatic changes codify the concept of coercive control in domestic violence, which is a pattern of behavior used to dominate an ex-spouse, the other parent or intimate partner. A judge would determine custody and visitation based on whether there is a pattern of controlling behavior by one or both of the parents.

"The idea here is that a lot of domestic violence isn't necessarily charged, but also isn't necessarily a crime," said Elizabeth Ditlevson, deputy director of the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "So, if I don't let you know anything about our finances, that's not a crime, but it might show the kind of partner I am, how I'm controlling, how my behavior towards the other partner may be (harming) the children in the home."

Only Colorado and Illinois have aspects of coercive control in their laws regarding child custody procedures, Ditlevson said.

Joan Meier, a George Washington University law professor who consulted on the proposed legislation, said the concept is "cutting edge" and there is universal agreement among experts in the field of domestic violence and advocates for child custody that coercive control separates true and false allegations, assesses serious danger and predicts future implications.

"Coercive control isn't in the statutes and isn't in the cases and yet it's what everyone knows on the ground is the key dynamic that makes a relationship really dangerous or a parent potentially really dangerous," Meier said. "Everyone is talking about it in literature and in the policy arenas."

Fathers' rights advocates say the laws will lead to an increase in false allegations in custody disputes.

Brent Miller, who is part of a loose-knit network opposed to the coercive control language, said vengeful exes can twist any one of the laundry list of coercive control behaviors in the proposal to their advantage in a custody battle.

Ditlevson said the reason coercive control language is better placed in domestic relations statutes is because a judge would be in a better position to examine a pattern of facts throughout an entire case than a police officer responding to a domestic violence incident.

Meier said the coercive control provisions would actually help in sorting through false allegations.

"Yes, anyone can lie about anything, but it's pretty hard to paint a completely false picture of coercive control if you haven't experienced it," she said.

In weighing custody issues under the proposal, the court would first look at whether any "special circumstances" exist: violence toward the partner or child abuse; substance abuse; crimes committed under Arizona's Dangerous Crimes Against Children laws; and convictions for violent offenses or a series of felonies.

If a judge finds there has been substantiated domestic violence, then he would look at the coercive control section, which so far lists 18 various tactics and behaviors that are used in controlling the other person in a relationship. They include eavesdropping on communications, forging the other person's signature, keeping the person from participating in social activities or keeping them away from family and friends.

"It could show the difference between maybe a one-time (domestic violence) incident, which the courts would weigh less heavily, and a person who is engaging in a pattern of control over their partner, someone who is abusive, controlling, dangerous, and considering those factors in child custody," Ditlevson said.

An alphabet soup of committees and subcommittees has been crafting the statutes since October 2008. The Domestic Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, assigned the task of writing the statutes to the Ad Hoc Custody Workgroup, which completed its work in April and turned it over for review to the Substantive Law Workgroup, a regular subcommittee of the Domestic Relations Committee.

Eventually, the Domestic Relations Committee will vote on the language and pass it on to the Legislature. The goal is to approve the draft legislation by October and introduce it as a bill in the next regular session.

Steven Wolfson, chairman of the Substantive Law Workgroup, said one of the goals of rewriting the laws was to make them simple so people who are representing themselves in court can follow them, though the proposed language in some ways has become more complex and would add a substantial amount of language to the child custody statutes.

"So the question is, is all this language necessary, will the judges be able to digest all this language, will it help judges make their decisions, will it help families work their way through this process?" he said.

Wolfson said most of the wording that came out of the ad hoc committee involves the "special circumstances" and when they apply, what the court is supposed to do when they do apply, what parents need to prove and what they need to argue in making a case.

"It's a continuing discussion. We're meeting in June, July, August and September and may even meet beyond that to figure what is the best thing to do," Wolfson said.