“I have the court transcripts…”

From the transcript of the Business Meeting of the Judicial Council of California for October 25, 2012:

Yupa Assawasuksant: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today to give my testimony. Please bear with me. I come from Thailand and I try to express my concern, reasonable concern in another language.

My name is Yupa Assawasuksant, I am a registered nurse who received award from the medical school. I receive the daisy pin for being an extraordinary nurse at Kaiser. I am also a divorced mother of 15 years old boy and I have been through Marin family court for the past 12 years. I am asking you today please make sure the mediation working fine and not destroyed.

Please listen to my story from my heart to yours.

Please imagine if you have a medical problem and your doctor destroy all your medical history. When you — medical exam is pending. It will be a crime, wouldn’t it be?

My son came home from an explanation private genital — private genital. Nobody no why. My ex-husband was claimed that he put something at my son private genital. My son came home and talking about pornography that he was seeing at his father house. My son was exposed to the violent video game of his father at age of 6 years old.

In 2006 while we were taking our son to the doctor appointment, the father was whispered to our minor son that I’m going to be killed or died. My son told me, told the police, and told a judge in court. My request was — my request for a restraining order was denied. We went through to custody trial in 2005 and 2007, I documented everything in my pleading. I was forced to go to the mediation, with the Court mediator, Gary Wool. During my first interview with my son, my son told her his father was hitting him. She did not include in her report to the Court. Filed in her handwritten notes that my son had informed her that his father was hitting him. She also testified during cross examination that she did not read the court file or any of my pleading, not one.

I won that trial with the 26 days a month with my son. Then Judge came into the family bench in 2007. My ex-husband file another custody motion. I ask for a different mediator. My request was denied. I challenged her, Dr. Wu sent another recommendation that I lost all the custody of my minor son and placed me on to supervised visitation per week, no holiday, no vacation, and the father did not ask any of that. During the second trial she testified again,

Dr. Wu testified again during cross-examination, she did not read the file, but she head all the father’s pleadings. She testified during cross-examination she did not know the local rule and the State law.

Even following the court mediation proceeding and procedure, I document everything I got all the transcript and I present all my information transcript to the legislature in support of the state audit of Marine family Court. Which is include my son pictures of — explanation, bruises as big as a fist side. Medical report, dental report, school report cards, and especially the note that the Court mediator, handwritten note that my son was telling her that his father hitting him. And all was destroyed before the audit could take place. Anyway, I just would like to say this before I go that we need the court reporter and the video in the Court. In the courtroom to be — retaliation by the judge and organized crime by the court mediator.

 

Thank you for having me today.

 

Congressional Testimony of  Yupa Assawasuksant to Bill Windsor of Lawless America:

I couldn’t buy protection for my kids…

From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Debra Grant to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net 

Hearing after hearing on deaf ears …

From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Dr. Marilyn Foelske to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net 

Congressional Testimony: Karen Kestrel to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.

“The rule of law in lawless America is a myth.”

From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Karen Kestrel to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website:  www.LawlessAmerica.com 

Lawless America YouTube Channel:  www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

 

 

Press Release: Congressional Initiative to Fix Broken Family Courts

 

From The Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health:

 

Broken Family Courts Initiative

In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health

has launched a national initiative and Congressional advocacy campaign

to address systemic failures in the U.S. family courts

that are placing tens-of-thousands of children in harm’s way each year…

 

“Looking in a Blind Eye”

by Julia Fletcher

Driving through a parking lot yesterday, moving forward slowly, I happened to turn my head to the left for some reason. It could have been the bumper sticker that caught my eye. Big and bold. Navy blue and white. It said “We Are Penn State”. 

I don’t think I’ve seen that bumper sticker before. Maybe I have seen it and didn’t notice – having looked at it “in a blind eye” before yesterday. 

Most of us have noticed something for the first time that’s been there all along. Maybe that’s what happened.

Almost everyone knows about Penn State University and their football team and maybe everyone except me has seen that bumper sticker before and they already know what it means. I didn’t.

When I saw that bumper sticker, I didn’t think about cheerleaders at football games. I thought of all the “We are” solidarity slogans we’ve seen in the news lately…

     “We are Trayvon Martin”

                                                                                                                                              “We are Troy Davis”

                                                          “We are Bidder 70”

“We are Penn State”

“Wow.” I thought. “Bumper stickers to show solidarity with the children abused at Penn State.”

I certainly didn’t expect that. The Penn State scandal broke, and now, here’s this public awareness of the importance of speaking up about child abuse with Penn State leading the way!

Everything’s going to be okay… those working in family courts will catch this wave of solidarity and protect our children from now on.  It’s just a matter of time …

So inspired and so clueless. I drove home and sat at my desk to write this post, so optimistic and so ready to call it:

 “We are Penn State!”

Looking online for the bumper sticker, I learned what “We Are Penn State” actually means. It’s been one of the school’s mottos since 1948.

“Success with Honor” is another. 

It’s interesting to note that the phrase “We Are Penn State” actually did start in the spirit of solidarity. It was a show of support for the entire football team at that school and it happened over 60 years ago. The first and now famous sentence spoken was, “We’re Penn State. There’ll be no meetings.” and  “We Are Penn State soon became the football team’s cheer and catchphrase.

I would have thought that the majority of Connecticut state legislators would have shown the same kind of solidarity last month during a Judiciary Committee hearing when two advocates, a psychologist and a physician offered testimony to express their concern and support for a little boy in Connecticut.

It could be that the legislators didn’t show their concern or support for the boy because the hearing was mostly about an attorney – rather than the boy the attorney was supposed to protect.

Those who testified about Attorney Maureen Murphy’s alleged misconduct in the boy’s case, stated their opposition to Ms. Murphy’s promotion to the position of Superior Court judge. They told state legislators about her mishandling of clear and convincing evidence of horrific, unspeakable child abuse.

Just a few weeks before the hearing, Ms. Murphy had been the boy’s Guardian ad litem.

Perhaps the Connecticut legislators thought they had only two choices – to vote for or against Ms. Murphy – and maybe they didn’t have enough time to take a closer look at what happened in that case involving the boy. 

Could it be that some purposely “looked in a blind eye” at the evidence? 

Many of them are lawyers and all are politicians. Were a few of them worried about Ms. Murphy becoming a Superior Court judge and eventually sitting in judgement of them or in judgement of their clients one day?

The testimony was as clear and as convincing as it could be.

Connecticut State Senator Doyle wondered out loud during the hearing about how it could be possible that so many individuals involved in the case didn’t do anything about it. He said, “If Attorney — if Attorney Murphy was the only party in this case and the only person of authority, to me, that would — I could understand it more. But you’re telling me everyone looked in a blind eye. To me, that’s hard to believe.”

It is hard to believe. 

What happened at Penn State is hard to believe too.

Year after year, hundreds of thousands of fans filled that stadium. The football games were televised. The coaches and staff  lived their lives in the public eye. So many coming and going, in and out of the locker rooms. Surely someone must have seen something over the course of so many years. 

Those who saw what happened “looked in a blind eye” there too.   

Is it too hard for us to believe that some adults abuse children in unspeakable ways?

Is it too hard to believe that those in positions of authority in our homes,  in our schools and in our family courts are unwilling or unable to protect children from abuse? Are we ashamed to talk about it or is our shame more important than protecting a child?

Are we afraid or is our fear more important than protecting a child?

Will it inconvenience her in some way?

                               

Will it take too much time for him to investigate?

                                     

 Will their social standing be affected? 
                         Will others think less of them? 
 

    What happens when we dare to speak up first?

Was Ms. Murphy afraid she would be held accountable for not protecting the boy? According to the testimony presented that day, she tried to convince everyone that the abuse did not occur.

Why would she tell others to ignore the signs and symptoms?

And what about a child’s teacher? A child’s teacher would speak up if something’s not quite right. Right?

What should teachers do when a child’s grades drop 33%?

What should teachers do about a child who is “significantly depressed, anxious… traumatized… punching himself in the face… and talking in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him.” ?

 Did Senator Doyle think, if the boy displayed clear signs of child abuse at his school, those in authority at the school would take care of it? Did Senator Doyle consider that maybe the school’s principle worried that an abuse case would harm the school’s reputation  in some way?

Maybe it would disrupt the teachers’ schedules.

Would it invite a lawsuit against the school for not reporting the abuse sooner? 

Did the Ms. Murphy, as Guardian ad litem, convince the teachers to “look in a blind eye” so she would avoid liability as the one who was ultimately responsible for protecting the boy?

In any event, at this point in time, whatever reasons there were for whatever happened in that case don’t matter more than protecting that young boy from harm right now. 

The following is an actual email exchange between the mother and her son’s two teachers. All names in the emails have been redacted.  The mother saw signs that her child’s father was abusing him. She reported the abuse to professionals who reported the abuse to the family court judge.

Subject: meeting today————————

From: (Mother)Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM To: teacher@aol.com, teacher2

Hello (Teacher) and (2nd Teacher),

I have an emergency that came up this morning and I have to handle it A.S.A.P.

Can we reschedule the PT meeting for one day after school?

Thanks so much,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:56 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother),

I have a half an hour available on Thursday at 3:45. Hopefully that will work while you are picking up (Child).

Let me know.

Peace –

Teacher

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AMTo: “(Teacher)@aol.com” <(Teacher)>Cc: “(2nd Teacher)@gmail.com” <(2nd Teacher)>

Hi (Teacher),,

It’s not a good thing for (Child) to have his already limited time with his mother any further reduced, so let’s find a time when we can meet without doing so. I can make myself available almost anytime outside of my time with him.

Thanks,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:34 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother)-

Just wanted to confirm that we are scheduled for a brief meeting on Thursday at 3:45 in addition to you emailing me your questions and concerns, etc. I do have another conference at 4:15 on Thursday. I will be happy to read your email, respond and place it in (Child)’s file.

Let me know. Thanks.

(Teacher)

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:03 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Hi (Teacher),

I’m curious why you’re confirming a meeting that I was clear I won’t be able to make.

I certainly understand your constraint of having to get the material from parent conferences turned in by Friday. I also understand that you only have to offer me 30 minutes of time. I think, however, that we’d all agree that (Child)’s situation is far from typical, and that the typical amount of time spent in discussion will not validly cover the issues in anything but a cursory and unrealistic manner. I’d like to avoid the further spread of confusion and misinformation in (Child)’s situation.

I look forward to meeting whenever we are able to do so.

Thanks,

(Mother)

———-From: <teacher>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM To: mother@gmail.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Mother),

Surely, I agree that (Child) situation is not typical, however I can show you his school work, and relay my observations about him during school session in about 30 minutes. My job and dedication to your son is his behavior and performance in school. While I am sure you are under pressure with all that has happened, I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school. If there is something you feel is a particular situation that you see and may effect your son during school hours, always, please email me and let me know. Particular attention will be given to him that day, as all the teachers have done in the past. I am sorry to not spend this sharing time today with you, to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas. Your son is lucky to have you in his life.

Teacher

———-From: Mother <mother>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM To: teacher@aol.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Child’s teacher),

Thanks for working with me to make sure we can come together to find solutions to address (child’s) needs.

I will confess that I am confused about your goals for this meeting. In this email thread you tell me, “My job and dedication to (your son) is his behavior and performance in school.” However the questionnaire I have been working on for the purposes of this meeting asks many detailed questions about his home life, such as, “What area of your family life would you like to improve?”, “Describe your relationship with your child,” and “Tell us about your dreams for you child’s future.” Perhaps the most striking question that is truly relevant to you, and may need 30 minutes of discussion in itself is: “Does your child have any behavior or social difficulties?” I hope you can see how two pages of questions like this would lead me to believe that you are interested in discussing (my son’s) life outside of school at least somewhat.

Regarding the last question, part of the necessary colloquy needs to address how you make observations like “…to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas,” and yet have scored him as significantly depressed, anxious, and traumatized on the instruments you have filled out. I have witnessed him self-harming in the classroom, having been corrected by you or (another teacher) in several instances, and yet that is never articulated as a concern in his reports, or relayed to the authorities even when they ask you. Are you concerned that the bulk of his report card scoring has dropped to mainly 2s instead of 1s he was getting during his first year? I don’t perceive what must work out to at a minimum a 33% drop in grades – particularly the social areas – as “excelling in all areas”.

It is this, what seems to be a major disconnect in your reporting your observations, that I feel needs to be explored in more detail. I had hoped to do so face to face, but as it doesn’t seem workable for this week I’ll relay my concerns here.

I understand that being in this situation is very untenable for you and for everyone at the school. No one likes dealing with anything this chaotic. I didn’t bring any of you into this situation, and my asking for honest and clear communication regarding my child is not the problem – it is the only way to come to a solution that helps him.

Thank you for your time,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:01 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

(Mother)-

The form you have been asked to share is a standard form, given to all NESM families. We were trying to grant you the same opportunity. Please feel free to disregard the form all together. After a lengthy discussion with (2nd Teacher), we do not see (Child)’s social behavior in the classroom as difficult. I have conveyed this information to several lawyers, therapists, and doctors that have called. Each year comes a higher level of expectation, both in academics and classroom behavior. While we may have observed anxiety, we have not expressed witnessing significant depression or signs of being traumatized. (Child) continues to show improvement in self correcting his own behavior, sometimes with reminders, regarding hurriedly walking and a loud voice in the classroom. I will continue to communicate in an honest and clear manner – keeping (Child)’s well being in mind.

(2nd Teacher)

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:14 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Dear (2nd Teacher),

Thank you so much for “trying to grant me the same opportunity” as every other parent of a child in your school has. I’m not sure why it warrants a distinction that you’re “trying to grant me the same opportunity” that every other parent has, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I’m unclear what gave you the impression that I might like to ignore a form that I specifically have been asking for some consideration to go over with you in more detail to assess accurately (Child)’s circumstances.

As you well know, I have been under court-ordered supervision for the last eleven months, and my child is not allowed to spend nights in my home, for no other reason than I reported clear signs of physical and sexual abuse. I find it absolutely hypocritical of you to send (Child) home with a form asking many detailed questions like “Briefly tell us a little about your child’s history, focusing on significant events that have shaped your child’s character/personality,” and then tell me that it is a “standard form” and that you don’t want to entertain discussion that my child is not living a “standard” life.

It is a matter of record that you have scored (Child) on the instruments provided to you by the psychologists with elevated levels in anxiety, depression, and trauma. It is also a matter of record that (Child) has talked in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him. It is not a matter of opinion, and it’s veracity is not open for discussion. What is in need of explanation, however, is your glossing over of (Child)’s falling grades with, “Each year comes a higher level of expectation,” and your strange denial of witnessing behavior in him which is a matter of record that you not only witnessed but corrected.

I am not concerned about whether (Child) runs or speaks loudly or any other normal developmental issues that children learn to curb. I’m frankly not even sure why you would introduce such typical things into a discussion where I am referencing the truly frightening instances of things such as (Child)’s punching himself in the face in your office and classroom, and demonstrating a preoccupation with dying. These would be the behaviors that we are discussing, that an accredited educational facility has a mandate to report accurately to the authorities.

This statement from you: “I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school,” is quite true. “Unbiased” means reporting exactly what happens as it happens – not ignoring it, or saying children are “excelling in all areas” when they are punching themselves in the face, their grades are falling, and they are scored, by you, on psychological testing instruments as highly anxious and depressed. The reason for mandatory reporting laws is to ensure that professional educators are observing and documenting signs that a child’s home life might be abusive or neglectful. In the position you seem to be taking, however, ANY acknowledgement of signs of abuse would be “biased” against a parent suspected of inflicting it.

I had hoped that meeting with you about these issues would give us an opportunity to work together on bringing your disparate accounts of my son’s behavior and performance into alignment. I’m saddened that, instead, you have chosen to evade my valid concerns with a combination of defensive maneuvering and disingenuous obsequious. It seems, unfortunately, at this point that to continue this discussion in a meeting would be a waste of time. If you have any further information for me at this time or in the future, please feel free to email or call me at the number in (Child)’s file.

Thank you so much for your time,

(Mother)

“Success With Honor”. That’s a catchy phrase too. I wonder how many people in Connecticut know about that one.

“Barbaric” Courts on Both Sides of the Pond

From The Daily Mail Online:        

                

Scandal of ‘unqualified’ experts who advise our family courts:

Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed

 

By Katherine Faulkner

Life-changing decisions about the care of thousands of children are routinely being made on flawed evidence from poorly qualified ‘experts’ in the family courts, a damning study reveals.

More than a fifth of these vital reports are being produced by people who are completely unqualified, the Channel 4 News investigation found.

‘Experts’ used in hundreds of family court proceedings are frequently unqualified or unreliable, the study reveals. In some cases, reports on parents or children are being given to courts by doctors who have not even seen the individuals concerned.  Until now, these ‘expert witnesses’ – often psychologists or psychiatrists – have largely escaped scrutiny due to the draconian secrecy surrounding the family courts.

But in a unique study for the Family Justice Council, Professor Jane Ireland – a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness – examined over 100 expert witness reports used in family court cases. Incredibly, she found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified at all. A further fifth had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.

In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’. Often, these professional experts – who rake in thousands of pounds in fees from the chaotic family courts system – have not practised for years, leaving them out of touch with developments in their field.

They are often appointed to assess the suitability of a parent or parents to continue to look after their child in care proceedings brought by local councils. They can also be used in access cases following the separation of a child’s parents. Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.

In the past, parents have bitterly complained that they have not even been allowed to know the names of the paid expert witnesses who testified against them.

That has now changed but Professor Ireland, of the University of Central Lancashire, said 65 of the 100 reports she examined were ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ carried out.

Some reports were found to ‘cite opinion without conducting a formal assessment’ or show a complete lack of understanding of the conditions discussed. One was even found to have ‘completed an assessment on the mother without actually seeing her’.

Professor Ireland said an ‘urgent review’ of expert witnesses in the family courts was needed. ‘I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read,’ she told Channel 4 News.

‘Some of the most startling results were the sheer number of expert psychologists . . . who are reporting that their entire job is the production of assessment reports for courts.

‘I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.’

The Family Justice Council is an independent public body set up in 2004 and funded by the Ministry of Justice. It is charged with monitoring the family justice system and advising the Government and the courts on how the system can be improved.

One mother involved in family court proceedings told how a psychiatrist who had never seen her wrote a 14-page report on her and her family. The day after the psychiatrist signed off his report he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offence. Despite this, his report was still used by the courts.

‘He’s never seen us, never spoken to us,’ she said, ‘and yet he’s ended up writing 14 pages, with recommendations, that he could not possibly have made if he had spoken to any of us or had he read through the court papers.’

She said her custody case dragged on for five years because of the competing testimonies of no fewer than eight expert witnesses.

‘The court system in England is barbaric,’ she said. ‘It does not allow parents to be given a voice, it doesn’t allow their children to be given a voice.

‘But what it does instead is it focuses on employing expert witnesses – at huge expense.’

Nigel Priestley, a family solicitor in Huddersfield, said: ‘If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified, that is not just a mess, that is staggering.’

Please Forward to Those Who Can Help…

January 15, 2012

 

Greetings to all,

We are searching for a pro bono Alabama attorney who is an expert in domestic violence and child abuse to work with a nationally known attorney to support a case pro hac vice.

This case involves a child and a wonderful protective mother who is advocating for her child, other mothers and their children and recently presented her testimony in Washington, D.C.

Time is of the essence. Please forward this request to your lists and call if we can help answer any questions or be of assistance.

Let’s help make a difference for this child and mother.

Linda Marie Sacks

FL NOW Co-Chair of the Child Custody and Family Court Committee

lindamariesacks@aol.com

Cell 386-453-3017

From The Alabama State Bar website:

ADMISSION OF FOREIGN ATTORNEYS PRO HAC VICE

An attorney or counselor-at-law who is not licensed in good standing to practice law in Alabama, but is currently a member in good standing of the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or other United States jurisdiction may appear as counsel pro hac vice in a particular case before any court or administrative agency in Alabama upon compliance with Rule VII, Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama State Bar.

A foreign attorney appearing as counsel pro hac vice is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.

To appear pro hac vice, a foreign attorney must associate in that cause an attorney who is a member in good standing of the Alabama State Bar (local counsel). A foreign attorney must then file with the court or agency where the cause is pending a verified application for admission to practice.

The application required by Rule VII shall be on a form approved by the Alabama State Bar and the Supreme Court. The granting or denial of an application for admission as counsel is discretionary with the court or administrative agency before which the application is made.

For further information, contact PHV Admissions at (334) 269-1515 or phv@alabar.org

Penn State, Sedgwick County and The Protective Parent Reform Act

 

“… Not only are these children in danger,
but your children,
their neighbors children, and
the child’s friend at school …”

 

Where’s the FBI?

Here is a recording of a protective mother’s meeting with her lawyer and two representatives from DHHS Maine this past August.

In this recording, the mother asks those present to communicate honestly in order to discuss very specific issues about her daughter’s case. 

Mom says the Spurwink Clinic substantiated that her child was abused and that the clinic ruled out “coaching”.

The DHHS supervisor’s response?  He protects himself and defends his actions in this case. He talks about which words he used to decribe “coaching”.

Mom says she’s not talking about which words were used to describe coaching. She says the reports say the abuse was substantiated. 

The DHHS supervisor says mom is difficult to communicate with.

The tape goes on. 

Did a DHHS worker in Maine lie to this mother? Did a worker in the Maine DHHS office say that office had “secret information” about the case and, as a result, decided there was no abuse?

Apparently, there was no “secret information” and it sounds like that DHHS worker was fired.

At 17:00, you can hear discussion of the DHHS’s interpretation of The Spurwink Clinic’s reports.

Two years have past since those reports were written. If the Maine DHHS offce is still looking for a clarification from the Spurwink Clinic, here it is:

Caroline Rice on Trial Today for “Aiding and Abetting”

by Julia Fletcher
 
 
Does anyone know of any good investigative reporters who might be willing and able to look into this case and publish what they find?
 
Please share this with friends in and around Minnesota today. Thank you.
 
 
“Wednesday, December 14th Caroline Rice is on trial for aiding and abetting a minor, A. Rice, her 13 year old daughter. There is a 45 minute DVD of Carole Cole (unlicensed CPS worker) interrogating and badgering …A. Rice into making false claims about her mother and why she ran away – of which A. Rice (who is used to the abuse from Carver County) never allowed Carole Cole to force her into any such false claims.
 
This DVD exonerates Caroline Rice of all charges. Judge Richard Perkins berated Caroline Rice for entering the DVD into evidence.
 
Perkins also appointed a public defender, Steve Walburg. Perkins stated on the record that he wanted to `speak` to Steve Walburg personally before he represents Caroline Rice. Steve Walburg has not been representing his client at all, Steve Walburg is only there to represent the courts, he has made that very obvious in emails and treatment of Caroline Rice.
 
This is typical in these rigged cases.Carver County court held Caroline Rice for 53 days because her daughter ran away and desperately wanted to find and see her own mother. Bail for Caroline Rice was set at $15,000 – this is an insane amount for the charge she was being held on.
 
Bail was paid by a kind older man wanting to help Caroline and her kids. When the man stood in court and offered to bail Caroline out of jail the courts tried talking him out of it right in the courtroom, calling Caroline a `criminal` and asking why he wanted to help. The man refused to be talked out of the decision and insisted on bailing Caroline out. The county made it near impossible for the man to make her bail, upping her bail $700 and taking 8 hours to process the payment and release Caroline. This kind man will lose his savings if the courts refuse to drop the charges, as they should be dropped.

A. Rice and her brother (two youngest Rice children) are still living with their father. Caroline has not had contact with the two kids in over three years – other than when A. Rice ran to her mother last year.

Trial Wed, December 14th, 2011 at 8:30 am. We will keep you updated as to what Judge Perkins does and rules during the proceedings. Legally, all charges should be dropped against Caroline Rice. But we know this Judge does not abide by law – in any way shape or form.”

See related posts: Letter to Caroline from Annie and You Always Stand for the Truth

42 United States Code § 5105a. Protective Parent Reform Act

  

42 United States Code § 5105a. Protective Parent Reform Act

 

December 19, 2010

by Julia Fletcher

Randy Burton, former Chief Prosecutor of Family Offenses in Houston picked up the phone when I called the Texas Office of Justice for Children to ask for help with my child’s case a few years ago. 

Now I understand that what I told him was the same thing he’s heard from hundreds – maybe thousands – of other mothers who have also tried to protect their children in family courts in this country.  I told him that my child reported abuse, the criminal investigation began and the abuse was substantiated. After the family court evaluators got involved, all the evidence of child abuse was purposely left out of the family court case or simply ignored.  

After the family court evaluators got involved in the case, the attorneys, the social workers and the judges didn’t care anymore about whether or not the abuse occurred. After the family court evaluators got involved, all of the signs and symptoms of domestic violence and child abuse didn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was the degree to which my child and I were willing to act as though the abuse had never occurred. (Click here to see what legislators in Australia are doing to protect children in their family courts.)  

We were subjected to Richard Gardner’s “threat therapy” for a year and a half. Guardians ad litem, attorneys, court appointed “therapists” and various social workers told my child and me that if we did not willingly cooperate, I would be thrown in jail and my young child would go live with the man who abused  her.

That’s what happens in these cases. So, what are abused children and protective parents to do? 

Erase the memories. Pretend it never happened. That’s what’s happening all over the country when family court evaluators write bogus reports and new rules are established according to Richard Gardner’s depraved and twisted practices and theories.

How do the court evaluators get away with ruining thousands of lives every year? 

Mr. Burton’s explanation was simple: Those who get away with it get away with it because no one is stopping them.  

Good legislators in a few states have pushed forward various forms of the Protective Parent Reform Act, but what about the rest of us? How are the rest of us supposed to protect our abused children in family court in states where there’s no good legislation, no oversight and no accountability? 

While we wait for the Justice Department to investigate the “parental alienation syndrome” scam, let’s all make sure that every state finally does something useful with the following legislation that was proposed almost a decade ago:  

 

Conceived and Drafted by:
Richard Ducote, Esq.
1 Allegheny Sq # 455
Pittsburgh, PA 15212

(412) 322-0750

Ducotelaw@aol.com 

 

42 United States Code § 5105a. Protective Parent Reform Act

This Act shall be known as the “Protective Parent Reform Act.” The purpose of this Act is to correct the trend in child custody and visitation cases wherein abused children, and children in homes where domestic violence exists, are placed by courts in the custody of the abusive or violent parent with the protective parent’s custody, visitation, and contact with the child limited.

For any State or public agency to receive any assistance under the provisions of §§5106, 5106a, 5106(c), or 5116, for fiscal year 2005 and any year thereafter, the State or the State in which the public agency applicant is situated must demonstrate that effective June 1, 2005, the following safeguards have been effected and implemented either by statutory enactment or court rule promulgated by the highest court in the State, with such enactment or court rule applicable statewide in every court having jurisdiction over child custody, parental visitation, parenting time, parenting plans, conservatorship of children, or any other issue involving the residence of a child and the contact between the child and his or her parents, incidental to or following separation or divorce, or in connection with a paternity case where the parents have were not married, to ensure that a parent who reasonably believes that his or her child is threatened by child abuse or domestic violence, perpetrated or allowed by the other parent is not punished by the court, or otherwise penalized by loss or limitation of custody, contact, or visitation with his or her child, or the child denied the custody and contact with that parent, for that parent’s having such reasonable belief and for acting lawfully in accordance with such belief:

(1) The prohibition against ex parte contacts with the judge hearing a child custody or child visitation case, as defined and controlled by state law, shall be specifically made applicable to child custody and child visitation cases, and shall, in addition to the general applicability of the prohibition, specifically include contacts between judges and guardians ad litem, minor’s counsel, custody evaluators, mental health professionals, mediators, screeners, and other such persons traditionally participating in child custody and visitation cases.

(2) The roles of guardians ad litem, minors’ counsel, and children’s attorneys shall be limited to advocating for the wishes of the child at issue, and to participating in the court proceedings by presentation of evidence and argument in the same manner as a parent’s attorney. Such persons shall be prohibited from substituting their own opinions and judgments for the wishes of the child, submitting evidence which would be excluded under the applicable evidence law if tendered by any other party, and in no case shall such person be deemed a quasi-judicial officer or be granted any fact-finding role. This provision shall not require a State to mandate an attorney to represent any child in custody or visitation cases, but shall only be interpreted to the limit the role of such person when provided.

(3) Parents shall be provided full and timely access to all custody and mental health evaluations and reports which are to be considered in any custody or visitation proceeding, including all underlying data for such evaluations and reports, and shall be afforded the opportunity to depose prior to the trial and to cross-examine at trial any and all mental health or custody evaluators who will testify in a custody or visitation proceeding.

(4) No expert opinion or expert evidence attempting to discredit a parent’s motivation for asserting that his or her child is abused or at risk of the effects of domestic violence committed by the other parent, or attempting to discredit a child’s report of such abuse or violence, shall be allowed in a custody or visitation case unless that opinion or evidence is based on concepts and theories generally accepted by the scientific community and supported by credible and admissible evidence of facts which can be established independently of that expert’s opinion.

(5) Due process shall be afforded all parents in such custody and visitation cases, and such custody and visitation decisions removing custody, visitation, or contact from a parent who believes or asserts that his or her child is the victim of abuse or the effects of domestic violence perpetrated by the other parent shall not be made on the basis of written declarations or affidavits, or without adequate written advance notice and the opportunity to be heard as defined by state and federal constitutional law, even on a purportedly emergency basis, simply because that parent holds that belief. Furthermore, no such parent shall lose custody, visitation, or contact with a child based only on the opinion of a mental health professional that such parent is at risk of unlawfully fleeing with the child, unless credible and admissible evidence independent of the professional’s opinion establishes that parent’s plan or intent to flee.

(6) Court sponsored mediation, conciliation, and intake screening programs shall not make recommendations or fact-finding reports to the judge regarding child custody, visitation, or contact unless all parties freely agree in advance of the transmittal of such report, and any parent shall have the right to contest the report.

(7) No findings by any child protection agency shall be considered res judicata or collateral estoppel, and shall not be considered by the court unless all parents are afforded the opportunity to challenge any such determination.

(8) Whenever child abuse or domestic violence is an issue in a child custody or visitation case, no mental health professional or child custody evaluator who lacks specialized training and experience in child abuse or domestic violence relevant to the specific allegations shall be appointed by the court to conduct any evaluation in the case.

(9) Admissible evidence of child abuse or domestic violence shall be considered in any child custody or visitation case.

(10) No parent shall be deprived of custody, visitation, or contact with his or her child, nor restricted in such custody, visitation, or contact, nor shall such a child be placed in foster care, simply because that parent reasonably believes that his or her child is the victim of child abuse or the effects of domestic violence, and acts lawfully in response to such reasonable belief to protect the child or to obtain treatment for the child.

(11) No valid final order of protection or domestic violence restraining order rendered pursuant to the State’s domestic violence or family violence protection statutes and filed with the State’s protective order registry shall be violated by the award of custody or visitation to the perpetrator of domestic violence where such is prohibited by the domestic violence order of protection then in effect.

###

Delaware House Bill 306: To believe or disbelieve, that’s the question…

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

If a few legislators in Delaware have their way, Delaware House Bill 306 would have effects analogous to the current case law in Connecticut which allows an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse to sue anyone who first believes, and then reports, a child’s disclosure of sexual abuse. See post Protective Parent Law in Some States But Not in Connecticut. In her response to the Connecticut Law Tribune, Joan Meier of DVLEAP wrote:

“Whatever the actual truth of the abuse allegations, the fact that a national expert in the field, a social worker at DCF, and the police believed the child should have been more than sufficient to defeat a malicious prosecution claim against the mother. Indeed, the family court had previously found that the mother ‘profoundly believes’ the abuse allegation. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said that the mother had ‘persuaded herself that what she knew to be false was true.’  ”

 In that Connecticut case, the family court decided that the mother “profoundly believed” the abuse occurred. Anyone – malicious or not – who “profoundly believes” that a child is being abused, is obliged to report to the authorities any and all information that would lead to securing protection for the child – who might or might not be abused. A “profound belief” means belief . So does the phrase “good faith belief” in Delaware Code Chapter 81, Title 10, §8146 (a).

When “malicious” people “profoundly believe” that a child is being abused, that’s still called a “good faith belief”.  Those “bad” people are still obliged to report child abuse and to protect children – whether or not they have “malicious” intent.

The Connecticut family court case was followed by a civil case in which the alleged perpetrator sued the mother who, according to the Connecticut Supreme Court, believed the abuse occurred because she “persuaded herself that what she knew to be false was true.”  That sounds like “Dr.” Richard Gardner’s  theory called “parental alienation syndrome”.  

The problem with HB 306 is that §8146 (b) immediately follows §8146 (a ) and both are within the same section presumably also within the same context. That sets the stage for anyone in Delaware to say there’s such a thing as “maliciously trying to protect a child from abuse”.

 House Bill 306 looks like a good bill – to anyone who hasn’t heard of the “PAS scam”, unfortunately, it would be a Trojan horse for those wanting to silence mandated reporters and protective mothers.

Protecting children and acting with malice are two totally different states of being. How about keeping the two totally different subjects in two totally separate sections? If legislators in Delaware really want to “encourage the reporting of possible sexual abuse of a child by providing immunity from civil liability for making such a report”, here’s what the amendment should look like: 

” §8146 (a) No person shall be subject to any civil action for damages of any type as a result of reporting to a law enforcement officer or the Attorney General’s Office any act of possible sexual abuse of a child provided such report is made under a good faith belief that the sexual abuse has occurred.” Period.

 

SPONSOR:    Rep. Lavelle & Rep. Schwartzkopf & Sen. Henry & Sen. Sorenson;
  Reps. Bennett, Brady, Carson, Keeley, Kowalko, Cathcart, D. Short, BriggsKing, Hocker, Hudson, Kovach, Miro, Ramone, Thornburg, Wilson; Sens. Bunting, Marshall

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES145th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

HOUSE BILL NO. 306

 

 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 10 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO REPORTING POSSIBLE SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD.

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:

Section 1.  Amend Chapter 81, Title 10, Delaware Code by adding a new section to read as follows:

“§ 8146.  Exemption from civil liability for reporting sexual abuse of a child.

(a)           No person shall be subject to any civil action for damages of any type as a result of reporting to a law enforcement officer or the Attorney General’s Office any act of possible sexual abuse of a child provided such report is made under a good faith belief that the sexual abuse has occurred.

(b)           This section shall not apply if the person making the report is also a participant in the sexual abuse of the child or the person makes a false report of sexual abuse of a child with the intent to cause malicious harm to the child, or child’s family, or the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators of the possible sexual abuse.”.

SYNOPSIS

This Bill intends to encourage the reporting of possible sexual abuse of a child by providing immunity from civil liability for making such a report.