"Court Appointed Child Abuser" 1243 SW Topeka Blvd.,Suite B, Topeka Kansas 66617 PH:(785)266-8664 HOME: Jill Dykes Female 2801 SW Plass Ave Topeka, Kansas 66611 show full address Household: Chris Dykes (785) 354-1006 Faith_Full_@hotmail.com

10.30.2010

Family Court -- Unconstitutional Judicial Gag Orders- Court Whores and The Rape of American Justice


http://whoresofthecourt.com/

Whores of the Court
ISBN #0060391979
ReganBooks

Download the entire book
in fully-searchable
PDF format right now:

In this provocative and well-researched book, Margaret Hagen, Ph.D, reveals how expert psychological testimony is a total fraud, showing how the courts have increasingly embraced not a cutting-edge science but, instead, a discipline that represents a terrifying retreat into fantasy and hearsay; a discipline propelled by powerful propaganda, arrogance, and greed.
Dr. Hagen sounds a clarion wake-up call, offering some startling – and much-needed – recommendations about how we can reclaim our own ability to judge and supplying vital advice on how we can protect ourselves from the ravages of psychological testimony in our own lives.


Professor
Margaret A. Hagen

“A damning indictment of the psychologizing – and undermining – of the American legal system. With righteous wrath and devastating wit, this sweeping critique should stir national debate.”
-- Publishers Weekly

 

Family Court -- Unconstitutional Judicial Gag Orders

Over the past decade, family court judges routinely have uttered broader and broader gag orders, forbidding parents in custody battles from talking or writing about their cases. The pretext for these orders is that they are needed for the protection of the child.  Nevertheless, it's suspected that more often they are prompted by embarrassed officials who dislike scrutiny and criticism by internet bloggers in the wake of burgeoning out-of-control shoot-from-the-hip "therapeutic jurisprudence" in the family courts. The stated child protection rationale is specious because defamation, obscenity, violations of privacy, harassment, and other unprotected speech appropriately are addressed by the law after the fact when actual or potentially harmful speech can be specifically identified.

These orders are illegal under the First Amendment as violations of the constitutional prohibition against prior restraint. Now one mother, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union because of a gag order entered in her case by Judge Debra DeSegna in Providence, Rhode Island, July 29, at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families. Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island affiliate, called the order a "blatant violation of the First Amendment." Let's see some federal lawsuits. http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/judge-bars-ri-mother-from-talk.html

Dombrowski et al v. United States: A petition filed on behalf of 10 protective mothers, one victimized child now grown to adult, and six organizations at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts granting custody and unsupervised visitation to abusers and molesters.


Diane Post

  Dombrowski et al v. United States (2007) A petition filed on behalf of 10 protective mothers, one victimized child now grown to adult, and six organizations at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts granting custody and unsupervised visitation to abusers and molesters.

Entire Petition HERE

Diane Post On behalf of 10 protective mothers, one adult child, and 6 organizations, Post filed a petition with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights on 11 May 2007. The petition was supported by 17 national and state organizations as well.  The petition claims that the U.S. is violating the Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Man by the policy and practice of giving child custody or unsupervised visitation to abusers and molesters.  To read the petition, go to www.stopfamilyviolence.org



Send your comments      
and suggestions             

RAPPORTEURSHIP ON THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F St. NW
Washington D.C. 20006
USA

10.28.2010

This ‘Cottage Industry” of Topeka Kansas-- Family Court Mafia aka CHILD TRAFICKING


How GAL’s and other ‘Whores of the Court’ profit from forcing children to live with Abusers!

aka M. Jill Dykes, Rene M Netherton, Scott McKenzie, (see below links) David C Rodeheffer, Judge David Debenham, Odyssey, Safe Visit-  all ACCESS VISITATION programs-----continue the conflict—guarantee’s them more $$—for years

OUTRAGES: Bad decisions, Bad judges, Bad experts, Bad ethics, Bad ...Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. library...www.thelizlibrary.org/outrage/
BAD BAD JudgesScott McKenzie. Jill Dykes ... The Liz Library · United Angels Against Domestic Violence ...by liz. ||||| The "Responsible Fatherhood" movement by liz ...ks-fcrc.com/TruthLinks.aspx -

 

PBS Documentary: BREAKING THE SILENCE; CHILDREN’S STORIES

8--2008 BTS wmv - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

 

This ‘Cottage Industry” of Family Court Mafia  Nation wide--

its here in Kansas full fledge

this HOW they do it!!

 

Court Records of the Court Whores in Shawnee County Courthouse, Topeka Kansas

The Eighth Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference: BMCC VIII: "The Unity Conference" January 7th, 8th, and 9th, 2011


www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org

Battered Women, Abused Children, and Child Custody:

“A National Crisis”

The Eighth Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

BMCC VIII: "The Unity Conference”

January 7th, 8th, & 9th, 2011

(Friday evening, 6 p.m. - Sunday afternoon)

Holiday Inn Turf

205 Wolf Road, Albany, NY

(Five minutes away from Albany International Airport)

Reserve early to get the $99 conference rate!

Call: 1-800-HOLIDAY or 518-458-7250

Ask for the Battered Mothers Custody Conference block.

A major focus this year will be to connect battered mothers with organizations working locally, nationally, and internationally to combat unjust family court practices that continue to do untold harm to battered mothers and their children.

For updated details and registration, please visit www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org

Please reproduce and distribute this announcement and the conference brochure available online at www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org.

 

10.24.2010

“DANGEROUS” CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN?


Posted by Nancy Carroll www.RightsForMothers.com

Kansas Clown Jason P. Hoffman Corrupts Justice Again: Claudine Dombrowski is Screwed Over As Usual in Court

24.OCT.2010 “DANGEROUS” CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN?

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.

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.


1 COMMENT

TAGS: CHILD ABUSE

COMMENT PAGES

THERE ARE 1 COMMENTS TO "“DANGEROUS” CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN?"

  • Anita says:

    OCTOBER 24, 2010 AT 12:39 PM

    This is so over the top ….Why arent mothers and real men accross the country not rallying together to demand the court abusers and legislators are held accountable …..This is not application of the law !!! This is blatant anarchy and massive FRAUD, ABUSE, and WASTE of TAXPAYERS MONEY that funds the corruption. There are no “EFFECTIVE WATCHDOGS ….doing their jobs !!!! For example look at CA and the Failure to facilitate the auditing of the two counties family courts for excessive abuses of powers, as was ordered by the legislature …. and then look at NYS ..google exposecorruptcourts ….then ask when is the DOJ going to get off their taxpayer paid asses and start getting to work ??? Obama maybe you could actually put some of the people back to work instead of throwing our money to the wall street crooks in step with the previous administrations; or do you find it that difficult to find honest legal professionals…instead of destroying the good attorney’s like CA’s Richard Fine, or FL’s Jack Thompson, & Montgomery Sibley who fought for his client Merrie Morris ??

    Damn it this is court ordered child abuse and it’s time all taxpaying citizens speak up and demand the politicians take action now to end this heinous social cancer ….the HHS-ACF now Directed by Kathleen Sebelius is responsible for the Fatherhood programs funding that is fueling this national disgrace … The 2008 General Accounting Office report confirms there is zero accountability for the massive funding being used to orchestrate custody switchings to abusers …the more abusive patterns the more funding goes to the state. All states are abusing the various fatherhood programs …..and no one is paying any attention because the gutless politicians wont take the time to face the facts ….

    Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius was chosen by Barack Obama in 2009 to become head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She has been governor of Kansas since 2003. Sebelius comes from a political family: her father, John Gilligan, was the governor of Ohio from 1971-1975. She grew up in Cincinnati and attended Trinity College in Washington, D.C., where she got a bachelor’s degree in 1970. She married K. Gary Sebelius in 1974 and moved to his native Kansas, where she earned a master’s in public administration from the University of Kansas (1978). After several years as director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, she served in the Kansas House of Representatives from 1987-94. Sebelius was the state’s insurance commissioner from 1995-2003 before her election as governor in 2002. A Democrat, she was reelected to a second four-year term in 2006. She must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before she takes office as Secretary of HHS.

    How dispicable that one of the worst cases cited within the International Human Rights Complaint is situated in Kansas and now the former Kansas Governor is HHS Sec., following in the same old patterns of anti – constitutional bad government policy !!! Any of the political idiots ever read the US Constitution ??? Ever consider how highly discriminatory the so called responsible Fatherhood programs are ??? Ever stop to consider that ” THE TEST OF A SOCIETY IS WHAT IT DOES FOR IT’S CHILDREN” …..the US Government has the audacity to send our men and boys to fight in Iraq claiming that the Taliban is bad …..so why is this Government spending our tax money on the American Taliban ?????

    BTW …..there’s a much bigger picture than just the FAMILY COURTS CRISIS & court ordered child abuse ….there is CPS corruption gone wild, (just look at NY’S CPS run juvenile centers sex parties scandals) an out of control CHILD SEXUALIZATION INDUSTRY thanks to bad US Government policy all of which is tied to the AFCC & it’s associated org.s …see http://www.nafcj.net and get educated !!!

    Consider printing this and faxing to every one of your state Senate and Congressional Reps ….ask them What Are They Going to Do About this cancer ???? And dont limit consideration to these politicians ….cast a wide net ….it’s elections time and Im damned curious who’se got the guts to actually do something for the people instead of for themselves ….

10.23.2010

Un Ethical GAL Jill Dykes Posts images of Other Mothers Children on the Internet


http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=580852953

Mary Jill Dougan-DykesNext we tell you about how she released attorney client confidential information and on a minors case  she had her husband Christopher Dykes call and harass Claudine—wtg Jill—you really know how to be professional.

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/85536-1023201092953PM

Mary Jill and Rikki 10-20-2010

Yes the very same GAL from hell who has erased the Mother out of this little girls life—the Mother Claudine Dombrowski who is not allowed to even have any photos of her daughter and vice versa--  who is constantly being harassed for ANY images of her own child she may possess—….yet this county paid cunt acting as an attorney thinks its all right to post images of Claudine Dombrowski’s daughter on the internet beside the fact that this just aint cool..

Hey M. Jill Dykes--- we heard you screamed all up and down the Courthouse when you thought a picture of your child was some other persons hands.

Did it make you scream did it make you hysterical?? Well, now I guess any mother would be hysterical—just like Claudine is when it comes to her child..

the door swings both ways bitch.. remember that and know that HELL has a special place for you. Your Husband and of course the end of any law degree you hold.

MARY JILL DOUGAN-DYKES and all her little court whores –friends.. welcome to Facebook

10.22.2010

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI?


WHERE IN THE WORLD IS CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI?

by mamaliberty

SHES EVERYWHERE!

Take my child away, abuse me, take away my freedom of speech…NOT ON MY WATCH!

Lets catch everyone up here….here we are in 2010 and Shawnee County and Judge Debenham continue their obstruction of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When our forefathers came up with the idea of truth…WE ALSO hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

When entering family court they do not hold these truths but base their business on lies, corruption, collusion and cronyism.  They do not treat anyone equal, especially if you are a domestic abuse survivor.  We have seen these crimes, we have proof by way of transcripts, we have witnesses to the actions and we are making sure that no survivors nightmare with family court is silenced by those who meant to conceal their injustices, lies and bias.

This week we saw DIS-honarable Judge David Debenham spin his twisted head into a knot…not to mention GAL for this case psycho Jill M. Dykes and Attorney/Bitch  Jason Hoffman.  This judge court whore Debenham took posters for a DV rally at the capital.  Anyone could see he was punishing Claudine for allegedly speaking out, another First Amendement violation by the way.

But more interesting enough Debenham placine blame on her for placing a report from Roedheffer the PSYCHO-ologist in the case, online.  He states in court that he believes there is no other conclusion than it was Ms. Dombrowski who put it on the world wide web.  But no consideration that she was possibly set up by those that mean to do her harm?  No!  Especially since Claudine was not even allowed access to report…. but the others did!  Given the fact that Claudine was previously posting on the corruption of the court he based his conclusion on that alone… without proof or concrete evidence that SHE was the one that posted that report.  What about the expert Kimberly Ridgeway who stated incorrectly about posting on facebook.  Where is the proof?

No other conclusion????  Not even with a unprofessional GAL who told Claudine after she lunged for her and Dykes said she would make sure she NEVER sees her daughter again.  Screaming and shrieking through the halls of Shawnee Courthouse!  Not EVEN when the GAL has her husband contact Claudine on a PRIVATE number that cannot be googled??  Making threatening remarks about him taking care of the issue of his wife’s licentious and laughable behavior.  Unconscionable!  Amoral! Barbarous! Criminal! Dishonest! Unethical! Sneaky! Wicked!

So they claim that Claudine Dombrowski is everywhere…posting this….posting that….posting on her facebook page…CYBERSTALKING HER or was it HER???  But not only is it a crime in Debenhams court to criticize him on a blog or website but also for others….the WWW its a tool to use against her to not allow her to be a Mother to HER child.  I assure all of the idiots from Shawnee County right now that WE are everywhere…Claudine is our HERO…we love and cherish everyday that she has been in our lives…because we have had our own DIS-honarable Judge Debenhams in our life too….we have had our own court whore like  Jill M. Dykes….WE ARE CLAUDINE!  WE ARE EVERYWHERE!! Even in countries far far away!  Every one of those that blog about family court corruption has a simliar case to hers….sometimes even worse!…. where children have been murdered by their father by being placed by corrupt judges as you…sometimes children are sent to live with substantiated sexual abusers….but ALL the time we have a common thread….we have been abused not only by our abuser….but also abused by the injustices done by family court!  But most importantly we have survived.  We have beat the odds that we would be killed by an intimate partner who commits acts of violence.  We are the worst and best when it comes to being a true survivor….we are adamant we will not allow anyone to abuse us anymore in any shape or form.

We are not going to give up, shut up or go away….sorry.  Gag the internet…..but the internet is here to stay and so are we.  Ten years ago you would never find the social networking we have today.  Thank you facebook….thank you MySpace…thank you Al Gore!  You might be able to threaten a protective mother to not post anything and violate her first amendment rights….but you cannot GAG us all.  You say that she is her own worst enemy….no sir you are…you have failed to uphold the laws of the land…you have colluded with those that mean to do more harm to a victim of abuse….but mainly you are to blame for killing MOTHERHOOD.  Your askew view has made you the target….YOU DID THIS to yourself.

It began in February 1995 with a Domestic Violence Conviction against Halleck Richardson two months after her dear daughter was born.  What did you think she was going to do when Richardson came after custody?  NO MOTHER WOULD STOP….but you chose to stop her….we chose to continue to expose the evil and wicked ways of your court.  So RIP Shawnee County…from 1995-2010 you have tormented an abuse victim…but those days are over….its our turn.

So where in the world is Claudine Dombrowski??  Well..I will tell you…she is doing what every mother/survivor does that has lost a child to family court….living her life….walking in the truth….and waiting patiently for the day when she can look into the eyes of her child….and tell her I never gave up and I will love you forever.

So fuck off Shawnee County COURT WHORES….this is a free country and as long as I have the most potent and consequential words in American history….LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS…and boy am I pursuing it! 

in Child Custody Issues, Child Custody for fathers,Children's Rights, Family Courts, activism, child abuse, domestic violence
Tags: corruption, mothers, batterers, abusers, government corruption, battered women,abused, Judges, Court, mother, restraining orders, abused children, bad fathers, misogynists,women haters, stalkers, abusive men, mother rights, violence against women, pedophiles,court whores, Judge David Debenham, maternal deprivation, killer fathers, stupid men,Claudine Dombrowski, Jill M. Dykes, shawnee county, First Amendment Violations, ACLU,Mothers Love

0

Marchers Decry Domestic Violence in TOPEKA KANSAS


http://cjonline.com/news/local/2010-10-22/marchers_decry_domestic_violence

    Photo 1 of 3

    PHIL ANDERSON/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

    Claudine Dombrowski, 45, of Topeka, who described herself as a victim of domestic violence, shows one of the signs she carried in Friday's "March to Action" in downtown Topeka. The march, which attracted about 100 participants, was held in conjunction with the YWCA's Week Without Violence.

    Photo 1 of 3

    | EMAIL | PRINT | COMMENT | SHARE

    BY PHIL ANDERSON

    October 22, 2010 - 1:08pm

    Participants in Friday afternoon's "March to Action" in downtown Topeka varied in age, race and gender.

    Some marchers held signs and chanted slogans, while others walked silently.

    Yet all carried the same message: Domestic violence must be confronted, it must be stopped, and survivors must be supported.

    "I'm a survivor who lost everything but my life," said Claudine Dombrowski, 45, of Topeka, who said she has been at all 16 marches held each October in conjunction with the YWCA's Week Without Violence. "I come out here every year to bring awareness, because I can't let it keep happening to other people."

    About 100 people turned out for the march, which started on the south side of the Statehouse and ended about two blocks south at the YWCA of Topeka, 225 S.W. 12th.

    Before the march left the Statehouse, participants were urged by Kansas Attorney General Steve Six to be aware of people they knew who may be victims of domestic violence — and to assist them in seeking help.

    Six also applauded volunteers who work with domestic violence victims, and prosecutors who hold perpetrators responsible for their crimes.

    Among local law enforcement heads taking part in the walk were Topeka Police Chief Ron Miller, Shawnee County Sheriff Dick Barta and Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor.

    Jay Rice, 26, of Meriden, came with several other students from Washburn University, where he is a senior.

    Rice said the march was a way of keeping domestic violence in front of a public that might prefer not to deal with the issue.

    "It's a good way to put it out in front of everybody," he said. "Even if they don't want to see it, they get a little glimpse of it."

    Elizabeth Johnson, 32, of Topeka, another marcher, said she was a domestic violence survivor.

    A fiance in college, she said, was the abuser.

    "By God's grace," she said, "I was able to get out of that relationship."

    Like other marchers on the cloudy Friday afternoon, Johnson said the subject of domestic violence was too important to ignore.

    "I think it's something that's just not talked about," she said. "That's why I'm here — I want to raise awareness and stand up for the people who don't have a voice. And a lot of these women just don't have a voice."

    The Week Without Violence started Sunday evening with a prayer vigil for victims and survivors at Grace Episcopal Cathedral, a showing of the film "Telling Amy's Story" at the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library and a teen program titled "Relationship Ready!" at Royal Valley High School in Hoyt.

    The Week Without Violence concludes Saturday, with two youth-oriented programs.

    "Story Time for Kids" will take place from 11 to 11:30 a.m. Saturday at the Toy Store, 5300 S.W. 21st. Children will be treated to the short play "Strength," about a group of animals that learn the difference between being strong and being violent.

    The final event will be the "Speak Up, Speak Out Teen Art Night" at 7 p.m. Saturday at the Live Music Institute, 5224 S.W. 17th. Topeka high school and middle school students get the chance to speak about healthy relationships through artwork, the spoken word and music.

    Phil Anderson can be reached at (785) 295-1195 or phil.anderson@cjonline.com.

    10.21.2010

    The world learns about the corruption in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)


    By Silverside at DastardlyDads

    The world learns about the corruption in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

    In the old days (pre-Internet), it was easy for the good ol' boys to pull their deals with impunity. After all, the editor of the local paper was probably an old frat brother. And the DA, who's most likely a drinking buddy, was hardly going to rock the boat either. So word was not going to get out. Except slowly. By mimeographed pages. By word of mouth.

    That's changed. They good ol' boys still pull their deals, but increasingly, they can no longer do so in secrecy.

    Since I posted "Sham in Shawnee County" less than 24 hours ago, these are just a few of the places where readers have learned about what has happened to protective mother Claudine Dombrowski in the courts of Shawnee County, Kansas.

    State of Kansas (US)

    Emporia

    Lebo

    Lecompton (Hello Mr. Hoffman and staff! Glad you could join us.)

    Overland Park

    Salina

    Topeka

    Wichita

     

    Elsewhere in the US

     

    Rancho Cordova, California

    Wolcott, Connecticut

    Washington, DC

    Fort Launderdale, Florida

    Ormond Beach, Florida

    Port Saint Lucie, Florida

    Cedartown, Georgia

    Richmond, Kentucky

    Winchester, Massachusetts

    Jamestown, New York

    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Springfield, Tennessee

    Dallas, Texas

    Seattle, Washington

    Kenosha, Wisconsin

     

    Outside the US

     

    Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Queensland, Australia

    Quebec, Canada

    Hamburg, Germany

    Nairobi, Kenya

     

    So yes, the world is watching and learning.

    10.20.2010

    Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI


    This post by Dastardly Dads Claudine did not write this and did NOT post it.

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010

    Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

    The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:

    http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html

    I can't even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.

    Let's do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn't even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.

    Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.

    As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother's day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.

    And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don't like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.

    So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON's personal discretion--which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"--but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered--though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details....) But of course, Dad didn't exactly encourage or welcome contact either--that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.

    But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren't even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)

    Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn't "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court's rules regarding discussion of this case.

    All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn't even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy's elbow the whole time.

    Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent's attempt to discuss court matters--ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn't be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents' legal issues, which I'm sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.

    I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn't play any part in this.

    Under Kansas law, visitation isn't shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.

    Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants--except in private to her own mother.

    And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately--either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.

    So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.

    No, once again our major concern was Claudine's political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine's first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)

    But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY's blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I'm not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can't shut us up.

    And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine's "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman--no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes--earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody's facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won't give her name, though it's in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.

    So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine's facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine's facebook page, too--through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook--even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you'll find articles and links about those cases as well.

    And all this policing of Claudine's personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON B. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can't even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.

    And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn't like is that--as they put it--this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don't like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don't even like Claudine's facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine--apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn't see.)

    So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!

    Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court's decision is--after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can't really speak her mind--not as long as she's a minor and dependent on her father.

    We are not optimistic as to the outcome.

    But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system's control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about. Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.

    But at least it's something to hope for.

    Posted by silverside at 9:48 AM

    Labels: child custody, custodial dad, custodial father, custody/visitation,domestic violence, DV, Kansas

    1 comments:

    cricket1234 said...

    Oh my goodness! Are you kidding me!!!! Where is the judicial protocol in this case? I do not understand why the Legislators, and other political allies have not been brought into this situation. I would scream from every podium I could buy, rent or borrow, to let every single person in the state of Kansas know what was going on in their court systems!

    All judges are elected... It is an election year, get out there and get this judge ousted!

    October 20, 2010 6:44 PM

    KANSAS CLOWN JASON P. HOFFMAN CORRUPTS JUSTICE AGAIN: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IS SCREWED OVER AS USUAL IN COURT


    KANSAS CLOWN JASON P. HOFFMAN CORRUPTS JUSTICE AGAIN: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IS SCREWED OVER AS USUAL IN COURT

     

    Nancy Carroll I, Nancy Carroll, wrote this blog post on my blog, with the main portion being repost from silverside. Neither one of us are Claudine Dombrowski, even though pea-brained Jason P. Hoffman believes it to be so.

    FILED IN: BAD GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BAD LAWYERS, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR FATHERS, CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, CORRUPT LAWYERS,CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DON HOFFMAN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HAL RICHARDSON, JASON P. HOFFMAN, JILL DYKES, KANSAS, LEGAL ABUSE, MATERNAL DEPRIVATION, MOTHER CHILD RELATIONSHIP, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, CHILD CUSTODY FOR ABUSERS

    Hey, Jason P. Hoffman.  Idiot.  I, Nancy Carroll, was in the court room with Claudine in January.  I had the purple scarf on, gray shirt with purple writing on it.  I sat in the front row, writing notes, such as every time you snorted or every time Jill Dykes rolled her eyes.  So stop lying in court.  I know it’s hard to control yourself, but try.  You are a disgrace to the human race.  You’d do anything to accommodate Waste of Skin Abuser Hal Richardson and corrupt GAL Jill Dykes, who has pictures of Rikki Dombrowski posted on the internet.   Rikki’s own mother is forbidden to, but this low-life excuse of humanity has Rikki up on her Facebook.  Along with her own daughter.  But this is the standard practice for well-paid slimebags who protect and promote abusers in court.

    This is from the blogger from Dastardly Dads, who was in the court room in January with me (taking notes also).  I couldn’t make it this time, but she was there again.  Great update sweetie…thanks.

    Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

    The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience “Showdown in Shawnee County.” See the post here:

    http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html

    I can’t even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.

    Let’s do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn’t even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.

    Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.

    As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother’s day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.

    And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don’t like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall “situation” be compromised.

    So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON’s personal discretion–which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her “request”–but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered–though he denied “inhibiting” phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details….) But of course, Dad didn’t exactly encourage or welcome contact either–that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.

    But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was “uncomfortable.” She was the one who was “afraid.” Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about “fighting” that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren’t even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)

    Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is “afraid” because Mom allegedly doesn’t “follow the rules.” What rules? Apparently the court’s rules regarding discussion of this case.

    All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn’t even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy’s elbow the whole time.

    Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent’s attempt to discuss court matters–ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn’t be “afraid” of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not “afraid” or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents’ legal issues, which I’m sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.

    I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are “afraid” of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little “feelings” shouldn’t play any part of this.

    Under Kansas law, visitation isn’t shut off because somebody is “uncomfortable” for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.

    Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants–except in private to her own mother.

    And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an “alienator” with “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately–either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.

    So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.

    No, once again our major concern was Claudine’s political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to “stomp” on Claudine’s first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)

    But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY’s blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I’m not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can’t shut us up.

    And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to “testify” about Claudine’s “alleged” facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman–no more than a high school graduate with a few “computer” classes–earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody’s facebook page had to personally “approved” and/or “posted” by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won’t give her name, though it’s in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.

    So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly “references” to her case on Claudine’s facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine’s facebook page, too–through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook–even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you’ll find articles and links about those cases as well.

    And all this policing of Claudine’s personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON B. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook “friends” with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can’t even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.

    And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn’t like is that–as they put it–this lady “has a cause.” Or she has “become a cause.” They don’t like the “venom” (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don’t even like Claudine’s facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. “You are your own worst enemy!” he thundered at Claudine–apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn’t see.)

    So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!

    Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court’s decision is–after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can’t really speak her mind–not as long as she’s a minor and dependent on her father.

    We are not optimistic as to the outcome.

    But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system’s control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about. Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.

    But at least it’s something to hope for.

    FASTER THAN A FLYING MONKEY!


    By MamaLiberty

    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!

    10.18.2010

    Family Court -- Unconstitutional Judicial Gag Orders


    Family Court -- Unconstitutional Judicial Gag Orders

    Over the past decade, family court judges routinely have uttered broader and broader gag orders, forbidding parents in custody battles from talking or writing about their cases. The pretext for these orders is that they are needed for the protection of the child.  Nevertheless, it's suspected that more often they are prompted by embarrassed officials who dislike scrutiny and criticism by internet bloggers in the wake of burgeoning out-of-control shoot-from-the-hip "therapeutic jurisprudence" in the family courts. The stated child protection rationale is specious because defamation, obscenity, violations of privacy, harassment, and other unprotected speech appropriately are addressed by the law after the fact when actual or potentially harmful speech can be specifically identified.

    These orders are illegal under the First Amendment as violations of the constitutional prohibition against prior restraint. Now one mother, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union because of a gag order entered in her case by Judge Debra DeSegna in Providence, Rhode Island, July 29, at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families. Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island affiliate, called the order a "blatant violation of the First Amendment." Let's see some federal lawsuits. http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/judge-bars-ri-mother-from-talk.html

    10.13.2010

    Judicial Abuse


    theanonymums.

    Introduction

     

    Judicial abuse occurs when the effects of law itself are damaging to the person access to justice. In the most severe forms, Judicial abuse often occurs involving the most vulnerable members of our world: Children.

    For some time, judicial abuse has occurred across systems and mostly against mothers and children. Considering that it was not that long ago that both women and children were seen and not heard, just as things were improving it seemed as though humanity was finally valuing each and every prescious human life.

    Out in the public, such things would and do cause enough outrage for a sense of "natural justice". Away from the public eye, these human rights atrocities occur almost unseen and unheard like a thief in the night.

    Secrecy

     

    There are laws that prevent survivors from speaking out about their experiences. Whilst it is "for the children", children are not allowed to speak about the proceedings either. The media have written too few articles on the family court. To bring the case to the media, participants must seek permission from the court itself or face imprisonment.

    Controversially, fathers rights groups were allowed to heavily voice their stories of "no contact", "falsely accused of child abuse and domestic violence" and few were allowed to challenge that except in utilizing generalist terms and evidence based research. We are aware that most of these stories are not the case at all but are withheld by law to bring the public the truth.

    Family Court

     

    In the process of seeking more time with children and promoting what appears to be the most noble cause, has entrenched the rights of mothers and children in their ability to seek safety from violence.

    Heads have been quoted in the media for stating that "family violence is our core business". The propaganda that is spread about the voices of children and their access to justice promotes the profitability in manufacturing child abuse and domestic violence. They can do something about it, but it is not within their best economical advantage to do so.

    This will continue until something is done. ShareThis

    Disclaimer

    10.07.2010

    Mary Jill Dougan – Dykes, GAL, Topeka Kansas COURT WHORE


    What's a COURT WHORE? This bitch is--

    When Dr. Richard Gardner invented the pseudo scientific theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome he also invented a cottage industry of unregulated professionals. Some of these "Court Whores" are being investigated for having unqualified credentials and education. These so called professionals have pushed Dr. Gardners pro-pedophilia belief system of PAS and they make millions of dollars off this junk science. We will continue to expose the despicable profession of the Court Whores Like M. Jill Dykes GAL , Rene M. Netherton GAL , David Craig Rodeheffer, Scott McKenzie, GAL , Jason P Hoffman, Donald R Hoffman, Richard Maxfeild

    The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals- Over 58,000 Children are Court Ordered to live with Abusers and Pedophiles


     

    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.

    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

     

    How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

     

    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 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.

    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

     

    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