Faces of the Family Court Crisis from James Hall Photography on Vimeo.
A project for Center for Judicial Excellence (centerforjudicialexcellence.org).
Video and photography by James Hall (88zero.com).
Original score by Matteo Favero (figuramusicstudio.com/)
To learn more go to: centerforjudicialexcellence.org/PhotoExhibit.htm
FILED IN: CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,CORRUPT JUDGES, CORRUPT LAWYERS, CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DON HOFFMAN,FACEBOOK, FATHERS RIGHTS, HAL RICHARDSON, HUMAN RIGHTS, JASON P. HOFFMAN, JILL DYKES, JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM, JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW, JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, KANSAS, RIKKI DOMBROWSKI, CHILD CUSTODY FOR ABUSERS, JUDICIAL RETALIATION
If anyone should face jail time it is snorting Topeka lawyer Jason P. Hoffman for aiding and abetting a convicted abuser Hal Richardson and for lying in court (yeah, I’m not forgetting he claimed Claudine was me….Hoffman LIED willingly after I provided information in this blog identifying me as being in the court room with her in January).
This past Tuesday, three days before this rally shown above, Claudine was found to be “dangerous” in Shawnee County’s Kangaroo Court with Judge David Debenham. Judge Debenham also should be facing jail time for illegally taking this case from another judge. Here are pictures of “dangerous” Claudine:
Claudine after giving birth to Rikki in 1994 (see her black eyes!)
A very "dangerous Claudine" after ex-husband Hal Richardson beat her with a crowbar in 1996.
"Dangerous Claudine" after ex-husband Hal Richardson raped and beat her in 2000.
Claudine became so "dangerous" ex-husband Hal Richardson had to hire someone to assault her in 2003.
Claudine is prohibited from talking about her own case. She is ordered to shut up, so that the corruption stays hidden. The rest of us will not shut up though…Claudine does not have to talk about her case. We will make sure the rest of the world knows about it. The Executive Office of the President of the United States has returned several times, as has the U.S. Department of Justice. One of our partners in fighting corrupt bastards like this just let us know Obama and Biden invited her in to talk, we are keeping our fingers crossed on this.
Read about Claudine’s case here at Stop Family Violence.
Lastly, corrupt Guardian ad Litem Jill Dykes, who fought to have Claudine punished for having an image of her own daughter Rikki on the internet, has posted her own pictures of Rikki on her Facebook page (we have the screen shots). And had her husband call Claudine and threaten her (probably because she is so dangerous). Ooooooooh. I see jail in her future. If not, you can bet she and her corrupt buddies probably bought her way out of it. Jill Dykes actually lunged and screamed at Claudine at the court house last week when she saw she had the pictures. What an incredibly poor excuse for a human being this Jill Dykes is! I think this time they all went too far and will be paying the price for it.
The biggest victim of all is Rikki Dombrowski, who was crying to Claudine this past spring on the phone that she was not being allowed by daddy Hal Richardson to see her mom on a two hour visitation. This was the last time any excuse was given…they just failed to show up for the court-ordered visitation thereafter. How heartbreaking…Rikki was ripped apart because she couldn’t see her mother. Now she is bullied to say what daddy wants.
She knows what daddy is capable of. Just look at the pictures above.
A special call out will go to Rene M Netherton, M. Jill Dykes, Don Hoffman, Jason P Hoffman, Judge David Debenham and all those who conspired to take Rikki Dombrowski from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and Give to a Convicted Abuser Hal Richardson. Topeka, Kansas Case No. 96D217.
To this day have continued to deny justice to yet another of many Mothers and their children involved in Intimate Violence and family Violence and maintain coercive control over their victims.
www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org
Presents:
American Mothers Political Party BTR—LIVE Radio
SPECIAL GUEST! Susan Murphy-Milano is a non-fiction author and violence expert—a defender of victims' rights. A radio show host, Susan has appeared on Oprah, 20/20, American Justice, and CNN.
As a nationally recognized women's advocate, she was instrumental in the passage of the Illinois Stalking Law and the Lautenberg Act.
Susan's 4th book, "Time's Up” How to Escape Abusive and Stalking Relationships Guide , A Survival Manual for those in abuse, stalking and Violent Relationships.
Creator and Co-host of the hottest shows on Blog Talk radio: "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation" with co-host Sheryl McCollum Director of the Cold Case Institute and sponsored by www.websleuths.com and Crime Wire www.blogtalkradio.com/crimewire for families seeking answers in suspicious and unsolved crimes with co-hosts veteran law enforcement and authors Vito Colucci, Jr., and Dennis N. Griffith.
We will be discussing the latest case of a suicidal fathers rampage, John Skelton, who on Thanksgiving day gave his children to a woman so that he could commit suicide.
He survived but the children and the mystery woman are still missing. We will be asking Susan questions on how this case relates to the countless she has experienced and taking your thoughts and questions.
This is the show you don't want to MISS!
http://www.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?caseNumber=95CR+00836&location=internet
1995-Feb 21 Da Affidavit for Dv Case 94-Cr-836 Hal Richardson- Dom Brow Ski
While this CRIMINAL is on PROBATION for beating the hell out of Claudine Dombrowski (his girlfriend) HAL RICHARDSON Sues for CUSTODY of Claudine Dombrowski’s Daughter--
6 years later—the corrupt Courts of Topeka, Shawnee County Kansas do just that. with a little help from RENE M NETHERTON, M. JILL DYKES, Dr. DAVID RODEHEFFER—the ‘child trafficking ring in Topeka Kansas
Note same Judge is also the CUSTODY JUDGE—just a side note.
1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for Probation_2
Case Number: 95CR 00836
| Plaintiff: | STATE OF KANSAS,,, | Attorney: | BRUMBELOE,NANCY,SIPLES, |
| Defendant: | Attorney: | HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, |
| Division: | CR |
| Next Activity: | None |
| 02/21/1995 | - | Bond Posted: $2500.00/WS. Surety: HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSO - Date to appear: 03/31/95 ARB #4914-95 - |
| 02/21/1995 | - | $250.00 Cash Bond received from HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSON JR NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM. |
| 02/21/1995 | - | Case filed on 02/21/95 CONDITION ON BOND: NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM. Affidavit open for examination. |
| 02/21/1995 | - | Charge #1 - 1 ct. DOMESTIC BATTERY filed on 02/21/95. |
| 02/21/1995 | - | Charge #2 - 1 ct. CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY UNDER FIVE HUNDRED filed on 02/21/95. |
| 02/22/1995 | - | Bond posted: $2,500.00/WS. Surety: LOWELL LANDIS. Date to appear: 03/31/95 - MJD. NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM, THE HOMES AND PERSONS OF LADESSA DEL ACRUZ AND JAN DORAN. |
| 02/24/1995 | - | SET - Docket on 03/31/95 at 09:00AM. in division 12. |
| 02/24/1995 | - | SET - Docket on 03/14/95 at 01:30PM. in division 12. |
| 02/24/1995 | - | SET - Court Trial on 03/14/95 at 01:30PM. in division 12. |
| 02/24/1995 | - | Notice sent. |
| 02/24/1995 | - | AFFIDAVIT OF PRETRIAL RELEASE OFFICER FILED. |
| 02/27/1995 | - | Entry of Appearance filed. |
| 02/27/1995 | - | #1 Motion filed and entered by DONALD HOFFMAN. FOR DISCOVERY, INSPECTION, COPYING OR PHOTOCOPYING |
| 02/28/1995 | - | Warrant issued as to HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSON JR |
| 03/02/1995 | - | Subpoena issued and given to the District Attorney to be served on OFFICER HOWEY, OFFICER YOUSE, CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. |
| 03/02/1995 | - | |
| 03/02/1995 | - | SET - Motion Hearing on 03/10/95 at 11:30AM. in division 12. |
| 03/02/1995 | - | Notice sent. |
| 03/02/1995 | - | Affidavit of pretrial release officer filed by Mary Kelly |
| 03/02/1995 | - | Warrant issued as to HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSON JR |
| 03/02/1995 | - | Warrant recalled - as to HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSON JR 03/02/95 |
| 03/06/1995 | - | Warrant recalled - as to HALLECK GEORGE RICHARDSON JR 03/02/95 |
| 03/07/1995 | - | Subpoena returned personal service as to OFFICER YOUSE, OFFICER HOWEY. |
| 03/08/1995 | - | Subpoena returned personal service as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. |
| 03/14/1995 | - | PLEA. Defendant appears in person and by counsel, Mindy Rogovin , State by Bernard Hurd. Reporter Cuevas. The Court sustains amendments and dismissals of the state and enters defendant's plea(s) as follows: Ct(s) 2 dismissed. Ct 1 amended to Disorderly Conduct, KSA 21-4101 plead nolo contendere. Reading of the amended complaint is waived. After Court's advice of rights and inquiry, the Court finds defendant's plea is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. The Court accepts plea and defendant is adjudged guilty. P.S.I. is waived. Conditions of bond remain the same. No further filings. MJL. |
| 03/14/1995 | - | SENTENCING. Defendant appears in person and by counsel, Minday Rogovin , State by Bernard Hurd. Reporter Cuevas. After consideration of the P.S.I., statutory factors, arguments of counsel and any allocution offered by the defendant, the Court pronounces the following sentence: The Court suspends IMPOSITION of sentence of inprisonment and places defendant on 24 months PROBATION to be supervised by Court Services with special conditions as follows: 1. You shall pay: Ct Costs $99.50, Probation $25.00 2. You shall abide by the District Courts Standard Conditions of probation set forth in DCR 3.308 which the Court directs to be incorporated into your order of probation, a copy will be provided to you by Court Services. 3. Other Special Conditions: 1. You shall submit to an alcohol/drug evalution and follow all recommendations. 2. No contact with victim, Claudine Dombroski. 3. No drug and alcohol consumption/random UAs. 4. Enter and successfully complete the Alternatives to Battering Program. 5. Obtain a psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations for treatment. MJL. |
| 03/14/1995 | - | Charge #1 amended to 1 ct DISORDERLY CONDUCT 03/14/95. |
| 03/14/1995 | - | Charge #2 - 1 counts of CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY UNDER FIVE HUNDRED dismissed. |
| 03/15/1995 | - | Memorandum to Judge Buchele from Mary Kelly filed. |
| 03/16/1995 | - | OJA case filing entered. Case source: 1. |
| 03/16/1995 | - | OJA case termination filed on 03/14/95. |
| 04/18/1995 | - | Conditions of Probation filed. |
| 06/13/1995 | - | $124.50 Cash recd from RICHARDSON,HALLECK,GEORGE,JR, (99.50 CR Docket Fee; 25.00 CR Probat M) |
| 06/13/1996 | - | ORDER OF EARLY RELEASE FROM PROBATION FILED JMM |
| 06/17/1997 | - | Transferred $250.00 cash bond from case 95CR836 to 95D419 for payment per request. |
Criminal Record HAL RICHARDSON
More CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS here:
| Case | Name | | Role |
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka) | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka) | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR, | 1P | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR, | 2D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka) | 133D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka) | 1OR | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka) | 2OE | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR, | 2D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALE,G, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,,III, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,,III, | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G, | 1IMO | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,GEORGE,JR, (aka) | 1D | ||
| -RICHARDSON,HALLECK,GEORGE,JR, | 1D |
In Kansas, GAL’s that do this are M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Scott McKenzie
of Course the JUDGE is the ultimate—betrayer—he chooses to allow this to happen when he could be a just Judge—a human Judge---
posted by AMPP
How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?
In a Conservative Estimate — OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser. This is more than twice the amount of childhood cancer. That’s over 1,000 children each and every week!
Listen Now: The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals – Legislative Reforms Needed
Posted with permissions from: Montana Public Radio, KUFM, which ran on their news broadcast 10-5-2010.
Interview with Assistant News Director Edward O’Brien and Kathleen Russell of the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org about the cottage industry of Guardian Ad Litems aka GAL’s and the much needed State to State Reforms to pull their Immunity from accountability and prosecution for sending children to live with abusers in Disputed Child Custody Cases.
Remember that therapeutic jurisprudence COSTS money, and prolongs litigation. It costs nothing to abrogate their immunity and/or to get rid of them. See,http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html
Listen Now: The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals – Legislative Reforms Needed
OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser.
Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President
tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg
According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuseand Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.
Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.
How We Obtained This Estimate:
No one knows the exact number of children who are left in the unprotected care of an abusive parent following their parents’ divorce. The Leadership Council has studied the problem and using the best available research has attempted to come up with a conservative estimate of the problem. We estimate that each year, 58,500 minor children are placed at risk for injury because the courts ordered them into the unsupervised care of a violent parent.
The estimate is meant to be conservative and was obtained using the figures in the following table. The research that we used to obtain these figures is explained in more depth in the following section.
| Number of children affected by divorce each year | 1,000,000 |
| Number of families with allegations of child abuse and/or severe domestic violence (13%) | x.13 |
| =130,000 cases | |
| When investigated, percentage of cases found to be valid or suspected to be valid. (Research suggests that the number is between 43 and 73%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 70%. To be conservative we will use 60%) | X .60 |
| =78,000 | |
| Percentage of children left unprotected. (Research suggests that the number is between 56-90%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 90%. A conservative estimate is 75%) | X .75 |
| Estimate of children in the U.S. who are left in the unprotected care of an abuser after their parents’ divorce | =58,500 |
The research:
Estimates suggest that between 1 and 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year — ultimately 40% of all children are affected by divorce.1,2,3
It is difficult to determine the number of divorcing families affected by violence. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland analyzed an extensive dataset, which consists of a random sampling of all divorce and custody cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0%).4
This is likely an underestimate as court records often fail to note domestic violence5 and other studies have shown higher rates. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, found documentedevidence of domestic violence in 24%-55% of custody court records depending on the state.6
In addition, studies suggest that in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, there is often a history of violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation. In many cases, the violence involves severe battering and/or the use of weapons.7
To be conservative we will go with 13%. So how many of these allegations are likely to be valid. Research suggests when allegations of child abuse are investigated, approximately 50-73% are found to be valid.8
However, when courts get involved in determining custody, children are rarely protected from the violent parent. In at least 75% of cases the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser. (Research has found results ranging from 56-90%; a conservative estimate is 75%).9
So how many children whose parents divorce are left in the unprotected care of an abuser each year in the United States ? Thus a conservative estimate based on available research is that approximately 58,500 are left at risk of physical and psychological injury after being ordered into the unsupervised care of an abuser after their parents divorce. This number includes both those who are left in the sole care of an abuser and those who are required to have unsupervised visits.
Compare this to the number of cases of childhood cancer per year. In 2004 the incidence rate of newly diagnosed childhood cancers in the U.S. was 22,586.10
Most people who divorce do so early in their marriage,.3 and children who are court-ordered into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, an abuser will be at risk of abuse until they reach adulthood. Consequently, at any point in time it is likely that a half a million children are left unprotected from a violent parent after their parents’ divorce.
References
1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Divorce – Helping Children Adjust.http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C⊂_cat=0
(“Every year, more than one million children in the United States experience the divorce of their parents.”)
2. National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002, October 15). Preventive Sessions After Divorce Protect Children into Teens.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2002/preventive-sessions-after-divorce-protect-children-into-teens.shtml
(“About 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year—ultimately 40 percent of all children.”)
3. Shiono, P. H., & Quinn, L. S. (1994, Spring). Epidemiology of Divorce.Future of Children, 4 (1). Available athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART2.pdf
(Each year since the mid-1970s, more than 1 million children have experienced a family divorce.”)
4. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland. (2004). Custody and financial distribution in Maryland: An empirical study of custody and divorce cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Towson, MD.
http://www.wlcmd.org/pdf/CustodyFinancialDistributionInMD.pdf
(“Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0 percent). Of these, 169 allegations were made by women and 36 by men.”)
5. Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11 (8), 991-1021.
(Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle , studied divorce cases and found that in 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history of domestic violence, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files. Similarly the National Center for State Courts that a screening process [utilized by the mediation program] revealed a much higher incidence of domestic violence than a review of court records alone would have indicated [see ref 6 below]).
6. Susan Keilitz et al, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers , prepared for the National Center for State Courts; State Justice Institute," NCSC Publication Number R- 202, p. 5.
7. Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-Conflict Divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182, p. 167.
8. Research used in substantiation estimate:
Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1997). Problems and solutions in the management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes in the family court. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(4), 431-443.
(Researchers reviewed court records of some 200 families where child abuse allegations had been made in custody and access disputes in jurisdictions in two states, observed court proceedings and interviewed court and related services’ staff.The allegations of abuse were usually valid. 70% were determined to involve severe physical and/or sexual abuse.The overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations in noncustody related investigations.)
Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4 (4), 1-25.
(Researchers examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely; 20% unlikely; and 7.4% uncertain. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.)
Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151-63.
(Researchers examined court records in 9,000 families in custody/visitation disputes. In the 129 cases for which a determination of the validity of the allegation was available, 50% were found to involve abuse , 33% were found to involve no abuse, and 17% resulted in an indeterminate ruling. [*note: Court records provide less reliable than evaluations by multidisciplinary teams trained in recognizing child abuse].)
Jones, D.P.H., & Seig, A. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E.B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, pp. 22-36.
(This article reports on 20 cases evaluated by the C. Henry Kempe Centre which involved both sexual abuse allegations and a parental custody dispute. 70% of cases were found to be reliable and 20% of the cases appeared fictitious.)
McGraw, J.M., & Smith, H.A. (1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49-61.
(This study describes 18 cases of child sexual abuse allegations made during divorce and custody disputes. The cases were reviewed using the clinical process of validation used at the Kempe Center in Denver, Colorado. The number of cases categorized as founded was eight [44.4%]. In two cases [ 11%]) there was insufficient information to make a determination, and five were judged to be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion. Three cases were judged to be fictitious [16.5%], only one of which came from a child.)
Paradise, J. E., Rostain, A. L., & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.
(Researchers systematically evaluated child sexual abuse cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author’s practice were systematically reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute [39% of the sample] were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children [5.4 vs 7.8 years]. Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict [nonsignificant] but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.)
Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)
Using data from the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98), this paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation. The national study examined abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.
When there was an on-going custody dispute the substantiation rate by CPS was 40% and an addition 14% were suspected but there wasn’t enough evidence to make a final determination. 12% were believed to be intentionally false. Allegations of neglect was the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment. Substantiation rates varied significantly by source of report, with reports from the police (60%), custodial parents (47%), and children (54%) being generally most likely to be substantiated, while noncustodial parents (usually fathers) have a lower substantiation rate (33%), and anonymous reports being least likely to be substantiated (16%). Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the study, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.
Hlady, L.J., & Gunter, E.J. (1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes.Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591-3.
(Researchers reviewed the charts of all children involved in custody access disputes seen by Child Protective Services (CPS) at British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital in 1988. Of the 370 such children evaluated by CPS, 34 involved allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) that arose during custody/access disputes. These children’s physical examinations were then compared with the 219 children seen during the same one-year period for alleged CSA not involving custody/access disputes. A similar percentage of positive physical findings were found in both groups. It is concluded that the concern that allegations of CSA that arise during custody/access disputes are likely to be false is not borne out by these findings.)
9. Research used in this estimate:
Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)
(Examined judicial responses to protective parents’ complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser.Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.)
Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.
(This study examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases the alleged perpetrator was granted unsupervised visitation.
Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody.In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother’s boyfriend, or one of mother’s relatives).
Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11(8), 991-1021.
(Examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence on child custody and visitation outcomes. Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.)
Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23. Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf
(Researchers compared 200 child custody mediations involving charges of domestic violence with 200 mediations that did not.Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue.)
See also:
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.
10. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2007). United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs .
For more information see:
Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9 (3), 33-47. (PDF)
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. (2006). 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them. Washington, DC: Author.http://leadershipcouncil.org/docs/ABA_custody_myths.pdf
More research is available from the Leadership Council web site
www.leadershipcouncil.org
The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at:www.leadershipcouncil.org
NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies - 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances...
THESE CASES ARE NOT "TRAGEDIES". THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:
Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN
KANSAS
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vacuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/%7Efreepress/7-12-01-8.html
Google M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Court Appointed Child Abusers in Topeka Kansas
It’s monetary--- it’s all about the money.
CA3- Children Against Court Appointed Child Abusers the CACA STOPS here.
Stop The Gravy Train—you’ll stop the Child Trafficking by way of family Courts.
OUTRAGES: Bad decisions, Bad judges, Bad experts, Bad ethics, Bad ...
Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN
Listen Now:
Faster than a flying monkey the witch flew off the broom handle yesterday in a Kansas courtroom…yes we are talking about Jill M. Dykes!
After a hearing was adjourned in regards to the DIS-honorabel Judge David Debenham personally took off the docket of Judge Schimdt. The same Judge who originally started the death of Claudine Dombrowksis relationship and being a MOTHER to HER child!
The beat went on at the hearing of course and in usual Debenham fashion he refused to enter any evidence of collusion and conflict by this Mother. Today Debenham is set to determine soley based on his interview with the daughter IF he will followed the applied laws and statutes of the land of OZ. That still remains to be seen….
But if the usual corruption, cronyism and collusion doesnt confound people by now this will. After the hearing was adjourned GAL Jill M. Dykes Court Whore couldnt help herself to see what evidence Claudine had. She viewed and cranked her neck over the shoulder to gain sight of the facebook screen shots of Dykes facebook. She shrieked and squealed as if someone had murdered her. She saw that her child was in one of the screenshots of Dykes public facebook profile. Pictures SHE put on the internet for ALL to see…not just Claudine. She ran to cry to the judge that OH MY GOD someone had found her public facebook account and took proof of the corruption. Just as THEY have been doing to Claudine since she started exposing these whores of the court of Kansucks!
Last night at 5:06pm Claudine received a phone call from the GALs husband, Christopher Dykes. Thats right, a professional that is paid with tax dollars put her husband up to phone Ms. Dombrowskis PRIVATE UNLISTED cell phone number. He wanted to know if he had anything to worry about because, someone called me from the courthouse and told me my wife is upset,. Hmmm…first off lets take this slow…since when is this EVER appropriate and secondly Claudines number is private for a reason, because she has been abused and stalked. She is under protection with a program for abuse victims to make sure their abusers/colluders dont have access to their address or phone number. Specifically unwanted contact like the call from the GALs hubby! Claiming he knew nothing of Claudines case, but yet knew enough that his wife was upset regarding the facebook pictures. Just as upset as ANY mother could be when they view their child is in danger. Which the whole big beef that started this shit was the pictures and tribute video that a MOTHER made with HER childs pictures.
The next item of unbelievable corruption Debenham refused to return posters and other items for a DV Rally in Kansas worth over $500! These items were in the galley…along with everyone’s coats and purses that he didn’t take…he said they were HIS. Even after contacting police regarding this theft the judge refuses to return personal property! Is he trying to avoid Claudine from protesting?
That IS a FIRST Amendment Violation! This is not over we are not going to stop blogging!
NOT EVERY BLOG IS OWNED BY CLAUDINE….WE THERE ARE MANY OF US THAT HAVE FOLLOWED THIS OUTRAGE!
We know you are trying to shut her up, make her give up, go away….shes not…and NEITHER ARE WE!
http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/547742-1118201022156AM
http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/205830-1118201022802AM
According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer. Read rest of Article here: http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/1-research-articles-family-court-bias-custody-abuse-battered-moms/41-how-many-children-are-court-ordered-into-unsupervised-contact-with-an-abusive-parent-after-divorce
As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the "man" who did this to Claudine.
To read Claudine's history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here
If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here
AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994
AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996
AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000
AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003
THE "COFFEE TABLE" IN THE FATHER'S HOME IS A CHILD'S COFFIN. MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.
PRESS RELEASEOVERVIEW and FAQ's in materials on the right side of this page.
Scroll down to read full petitition, including case histories of several of the petitioners. You will be horrified to learn what is happening to abused women and children in courtrooms all across this country.
Exhibit 28: Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories
Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Tatge Lasseur Productions, 2006 Underwritten by a grant from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.
Full length of this documentary was submitted to the IACHR.
Full Petition to the IACHR (large file)
Petitioners
- Dombrowski KS
- Titelman GA
- K.A Amador Co., CA
- J.H. Amador Co., CA
- Shockome NY
- Navratil CA
- Horton NY
- Petitioners A, B, C are confidential to protect their safety. Not included in public materials.
- Organization petitioners
Court Gender Bias - academic studies
Court Gender Bias -experiential studies
Alleged Violations of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
Additional Supporting Organizations - list
EXHIBITS
1. Photos of petitioner Claudine Dombrowski . (graphic)
2. Affidavit and book, Let My Children Go, A Mother’s Journal , Wendy Titelman, Kinderlex Books, 2005.
3. Letter from California Protective Parents Association .
4. Affidavit from Kourts for Kids.
5. Letter from StopFamilyViolence.org .
6. EXPOSE The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes: A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental health Professionals, Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation, Los Gatos, CA, 1999.
( very large file - long time to load)7. Chesler, Phyllis, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY, 1986, select pages.
8. Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, June 2003.
9. Common Misconceptions in Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes , Jaffee, Crooks, and Poisson, 57 Juvenile and Family Court Journal Fall 2003.
10. Justice in the Domestic Relations Division of the Philadelphia Family Court: A Report to the Community, Women’s Law Project, Philadelphia, Pa, April 2003.
11. California Protective Parents Network , national survey, September 2001 to December 2004.
Part 1 - table
Part 2 - report
12. Jana Bommersbach, Jana’s View, Phoenix Magazine , May 2006, p. 28.
13. Article Launched: 6/18/2006 12:00 AM , Mom termed 'parental alienator' wins rare vindication in courts , BY TROY ANDERSON, Staff Writer, LA Daily News.
14. Hoult, Jennifer, J.D., The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law and Policy, Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring 2006.
15. Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judges Guide , National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2004, revised 2006.
16. Report on Women’s Rights in the United States under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in response to the Second and Third Periodic Report of the United States of America, July 2006.
17. Courageous Kids personal stories.
Part 1 - Courageous Kids Network
Part 2 - Case Studies
Part 3 - Letter to IACHR by siblings
Part 4 - Alana Krause, Girl, Interrupted
18. Letter from Legal Momentum to Daniel Meron, DHHS , Washington, DC dated 28 February 2007.
19. European Parliament, A6-0404/2005, Report , 9.12.2005 on the current situation in combating violence against women and any future action (2004/2220(INI)) Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality Rapporteur: Maria Carlshamre PE 364.709v02-00 2/17 RR364709EN.doc
20. Testimony to the Truth Commission , Fourth Battered Mothers Custody Conference, January 2007.
21. Examples of Injustices in NYC Family Courts , Battered Women’s Resources Center, January 2007.
22. Letter and columns from The Parenting Project , Rhode Island.
23. Letter from the Illinois Coalition for Family Court Reform .
24. Letter from Child Abuse Forensic Institute , Napa, CA.
25. Legal Momentum letter and summary of Battered
Mother's Speak Out26. Letter from National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
27. Letter from Justice for Children
28. Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories , Connecticut Public Broadcasting (see above for excerpt)
29. Letters of support from additional organizations.
National organizations
- National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence , TX
- The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence , PA
- Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute , MD
- National Alliance to End Sexual Violence , Washington, DC
- Domestic Violence Report , Washington, DC
- Family Violence Prevention Fund , San Francisco, CA
- National Organization for Women and National Organization for Women Foundation , Washington, DC
- National Family Court Watch Project , MI
State Organizations
- Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence
- California National Organization for Women , Sacramento, CA
- Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- Michigan National Organization for Women
- New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
- Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
- National Organization for Women – New York State, Inc .
Posts
All Comments
Time's Up is a Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships written by Susan Murphy-Milano
M. Jill Dykes GAL, Topeka, Kansas Free Blogspot Templates Designed by productive dreams for smashing magazine | | Free Wordpress Templates. Cell Numbers Phone Tracking, Lyrics Song Chords © 2009
