impropriety? Learn the language….

Hat tip to Sbry for this!

There is a collaboration of differences within the court system itself. If a judge orders you to a specific person, i.e. psychologist, GAL, etc... it is presumed that this person has been before the judge; for the judge to determine their merits. In that example, the question of the judges opinion of that person is called upon. Why would a judge specifically ask for this person, and although he/she has been before the judge, what were the reasons for the judge to specifically require a person to see this specific person?I believe that the first instant this happens, the litigant has the right to know why, the very reason a judge chooses another person to come into any case.

What exactly is it that the judge saw in this person? How long has this person been before this judge? Has there been any other functions that the judge and this person been to? Do they have the same circle of friends? How many cases has this judge ordered litigants to see this person? Does the judge have this persons direct number? Has the judge called this person? (In the last 3 months, 6 months, 9 months?) It is questionable when a judge orders anything out of the normal function and I figured when we have more to lose, that is when the judge gets nasty...that's when they require more, expect you to jump through hoops set on fire, when in all essence, they know you will not be able to.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-indifference/

Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.

In law, the courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if a professional has violated an inmate’s civil rights. Deliberate indifference occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Even though it is difficult to identify what does and does not constitute deliberate indifference, courts have recognized several factual scenarios where deliberate indifference exists. For example, intentionally refusing to respond to an inmate’s complaints has been acknowledged as constituting deliberate indifference. [Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1366 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997)]; Intentionally delaying medical care for a known injury (i.e. a broken wrist) has been held to constitute deliberate indifference. [Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994).]

The following are examples of case law discussing deliberate indifference

Prison employees who act with deliberate indifference to the inmates' safety violate the Eighth Amendment. But to be guilty of "deliberate indifference" they must know they are creating a substantial risk of bodily harm. If they place a prisoner in a cell that has a cobra, but they do not know that there is a cobra there (or even that there is a high probability that there is a cobra there), they are not guilty of deliberate indifference even if they should have known about the risk, that is, even if they were negligent--even grossly negligent or even reckless in the tort sense--in failing to know. But if they know that there is a cobra there or at least that there is a high probability of a cobra there, and do nothing, that is deliberate indifference.[Billman v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. Ind. 1995)]

Deliberate indifference is defined as “a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” Crayton v. Quarterman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103709 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2009)

Deliberate indifference is defined as requiring (1) an "awareness of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and (2) the actual "drawing of the inference." Elliott v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91125 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2009).

Learn the language........

Punish the Children if They Refuse to Go With the Abuser

BATTERED MOTHERS, CHILD CUSTODY, ABUSE AND MURDER

Societal accepted ‘norms’-Approve Abuse and Murder of Women and Children

Child abuse: when family courts get it wrong By Kathleen Russell »

 

Claudine Dombrowski after another beating by her daughter’s father, Hal Richardson

Well, this is very Gardneristic (the pedophile-loving psychologist that invented so-called “parental alienation syndrome”)…punish the children if they won’t go to the dad willingly.  Yes, this is happening.   Could you see Claudine Dombrowski (pictured to the left) telling her daughter it is her desire to that shesees and loves her father (the father that produced the injuries in the picture, who eventually caused her to be 100% disabled)?  (I don’t think anyone could lie that well.)  Instead, her daughter’s father keeps her from seeing her mother.

The American Psychological Association is living in La La Land, or doing some serious drugs, if they believe that children in joint custody have fewer behavior issues if one of those parents abuses the other parent.  But what is more common is for abusers to get custody, like in Claudine Dombrowski’s case…..yes, they may start off with joint custody, under the “friendly parent” sharade, but they quickly work towards securing sole custody away from their victims. This is “domestic violence by proxy.”

So send the children off to the abuser, even though they beg and cry not to go.  Even though they tell you they are getting “bad touches” or being violated in some way.  Even if your children are being raped.  Off they go or you will be punished.  No matter what the children will think of you for making them go.   When will these organizations that represent Whores of the Courtrealize that children are harmed far more by being forced to be with an abuser or rapist than forcing them to love mommy and daddy, no matter what?  Shouldn’t it make sense to these people that the relationship the parent had before the breakup (or didn’t have) should mean something, instead of forcing something down the children’s throats?

Judge Tells Mom: Punish Kids For Skipping Visits With Dad

by Melissa Kossler Dutton

Oct 1st 2009 4:08PM

Australian kids who want to skip visits with dad may find themselves without video games, television or other favorite pastimes.

A judge has ordered a mother to deny her children privileges until they comply with a court order requiring them to spend time with their father.The judge said noncustodial parents need to “positively encourage” visitation and start “removing privileges if the child was defiant,” according to an article in The Australian.

The father asked the court to intervene when his children chose to walk home to their mother’s house rather than meet him for a scheduled after-school visit. The 43-year-old dad later received a call from his ex who told him the boys, aged 11 and 12, “did not wish to go with them,” according to the article.

The problem is “very prevalent” among American fathers as well,Mitchell K. Karpf, chair of the American Bar Association’s Family Law section, told ParentDish.

Judges here have the power to enact similar rulings after a divorce, he said.

“Mom does have an obligation to say you’re going to see your dad and if you don’t you’re grounded,” said Karpf, who practices in Florida.

Judges also can take parents to task for badmouthing former spouses or preventing visitation.

A Florida court once ordered a mother to tell her children that it was “her desire” that they see and love their father, Karpf said. Encouraging children to maintain relationships with both parents makes sense, according to the American Psychological Association. Children in joint custody arrangements have fewer behavior issues, do better in school and have higher self esteem, according to a 2002 study published in the Journal of Family Psychology.

Claudine Dombrowski Case No. 96-D-217 Shawnee County Courts Topeka, KS - 15 years later - and still All Human Rights - Continue to be Violated.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56hJxkI2Ubk]

Claudine Dombrowski Case No. 96-D-217 Shawnee County Courts Topeka, KS
15 years later- and still all human rights- continue to be violated.
Battered Mothers -Battered children and Child Custody.
access to justice denied.
Criminals are rewarded.
Court Ordered Abuse. Judicial Corruption, Court whores who profit.
http://www.AngelFury.org

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22claudine+dombrowski%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#q=%22claudine+dombrowski%22&hl=en&lr=&prmd=ivnslo&ei=PoyQTY2eHcSC0QHxuqycCw&start=30&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=91f35080109ff7ec

Court Appointed Child Abuser- M. Jill Dykes, GAL Topeka Kansas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaOwVPugJ5Q]

Court Appointed Child Abuser M. Jill Dykes, Topeka Kansas.
A Bottom feeder Guardian ad Litem profiting by protecting the abusers and spilling the blood legally of his victims. In this case a mother and her daughter have been denied contact in over 8 years because of M. Jill Dykes- lying to the courts ignoring her real client the child-
http://whoresofthecourt.com/
CHILDREN AGAINST COURT APPOINTED CHILD ABUSERS
http://ca3cacaca.blogspot.com/

Shawnee County, Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse of Battered Mother

Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake
Manhattan Free Press

MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child's coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson's wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child's coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can't be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal's report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."

Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."

And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine's attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."
Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitude changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor's reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."

When asked about Mr. Richardson's criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women's Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.
In Judge Buchele's Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible.

Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski's unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties.”

The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.
And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff's Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receives help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele's previous orders.

Even the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

Claudine Dombrowski: A Battered Mother Victimized Again by the Kansas Courts. Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski. Truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Testimony by Claudine Dombrowski at the hearing of the Kansas Joint Committee on Children's Issues on Nov 30, 2009 in Topeka about problems with child placement and removal.

Listen Now:

http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/mf/play/tf9pgd/Child-Issues-10-Claudine-Dombrowski.mp3&autoStart=no
Podcast Powered By Podbean

Standard Podcasts: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player

Compelling stories from parents and grandparents about problems with placement and removal of children

By Earl Glynn On December 4, 2009

See this video: Claudine Dombrowski Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

Claudine Dombrowski

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

Read details in written statement.

This is an truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.

Parts of the Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski, who was an abused mom.

Instead of quotes from the audio, please consult these pages that document Dombrowski’s long and difficult battle to protect her daughter:

• Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

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.

• Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
• Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.

State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”

“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”

Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”

Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”

Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”

Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”

Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”

Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”

Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …

“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “

“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.” “… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”

Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”

Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“

Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”

“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”

State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”

Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”

For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”

“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …

“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”

“I commend you for what you’re doing.”

Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”

See this video:  Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter

Listen to Claudine Dombrowski:

http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/2009/12/04/claudine-dombrowski-an-abused-mom-victimized-again-by-the-kansas-courts/

Domestic violence is on the rise in Shawnee County, Kansas

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBmHK9-inoI]

http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct... By Jessica Drew

Interview with Claudine Dombrowski and Shawnee County, Kansas District Attorney Chad Taylor.
http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct/20/domestic_violence_rise_shawnee_county/

"I remember curling up in a ball to protect her from the kicks," domestic violence survivor, Claudine Dombrowski, described.

Claudine Dombrowski is a survivor to domestic violence, a cycle she went back to many times. "I had a choice I could see my daughter or I could never see her again. The abuser had complete control, so I got my daughter back and went back to him."

Going back to an abusive relationship is a problem District Attorney Chad Taylor said his office sees quite often. "We see it everyday, and it's just a matter of the psychology of the cycle of abuse," Taylor said.

The number of cases coming across Taylor's desk is growing. "Our year to date projections for 2009 total is going to be an increase of about 80 percent for the domestic battery cases that we filed," Taylor said.

Claudine fights to help women like herself who have fallen in the hands of abuse. "This was the crow bar, and then I was beaten and raped," Dombrowski said.

She said she never reported her beatings until after her daughter was born.

Taylor said it happens often, "It goes from bruises to hospitalization, to like we said this is all about homicide prevention."

Claudine said even if you haven't been a victim, you probably know someone who has and you can help them. "Don't think it's you...get rid of the scarlet letter of shame, it's the most important thing."

Taylor wants to show there's help out there for victims. "Making this a priority and letting people know that this will not be tolerated in our community," Taylor said.

Taylor's office gave us statisitics on Domestic Violence in 2008 the DA's office received 1267 cases, out of those 508 were filed. Starting from January 1st until October 16, 2009 there have been 1347 cases received, and out of those 849 cases have been filed.

One Domestic Battery charges, in 2008 there were 723 received and 246 filed for court. The projections for this year are 784 received and 443 filed, meaning an eighty percent increase on Domestic Battery.

Dr. Sharon K. Araji Talks about Domestic Violence in Contested Child Custody

This 28 minute Documentary explains how Abusers use the Court System to continue to abuse the mother for leaving, by taking her children.

Guardian ad Litems, Mental Health Professionals, Supervised Visits, Fathers Rights --

All make money by keeping the battered mother away from her children and by giving the children to the documented batterer.

These are crimes and in Family Court they are dismissed and turned into profit for the above so called ‘experts’.

Child trafficking is legal in Family Courts.

Run Mommy, Run, Their is no justice--- ‘JUST US’ perps-—batterers, GALs, MHPs, Custody Evaluators, High Conflict experts, Supervised Visitation, mediation… the list goes on and on.

Claudine Dombrowski Presents BMCC8 January 2011 Albany, NY

Uploaded by KansasFederalFraud on Mar 6, 2011

Claudine Dombrowski Presents BMCC8 January 2011 Albany, NY

The genocide against Battered Mothers and THEIR Children.

Battered Mothers Custody Conference http://www.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence

Mothers File Suit Against US (Dombrowski et el V. US) Inter American Commission Human Rights Entire petition here:http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

There is a crisis in our nation's family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to protect them.

Peter Jamison's in depth investigative report:: Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-synd...

Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas

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.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1GEXUJFwo

Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody

Peter Jamison exposes horrors of family court.  http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/

Peter Jamison writes an outstanding article detailing the horrors of the family court system.

Peter Jamison writes an outstanding article detailing the horrors of the family court system:California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody

Read the entire explosive investigative report here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/

Read the well over 1,000 comments since it was published on March 2nd, 2011

Overview: Peter Jamison exposes horrors of family court provided by Media Misses

Interviews with dozens of parents, activists, lawyers, judges, children, and former family court employees, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of family and criminal court documents, indicate that the system's methods for assessing whether child sexual abuse or spousal battery has taken place - findings that are critical to deciding whether a parent should retain custody of or visitation rights with a child - fall short of the standards accepted by domestic-violence experts and the criminal-justice community.

And here lies the problem:

Still, advocates of reform say a few widespread problems lead to poor court decisions, such as inadequate procedures for investigating abuse; the use of controversial and potentially dangerous psychological theories about child welfare; and a prejudice toward joint parental custody, even when one parent is clearly violent. Compounding these issues, critics say, is a lack of accountability for judges, attorneys, custody evaluators, and other court personnel, who enjoy immunity from lawsuits even in cases where they make decisions that do obvious harm to children and parents.

And this:

Family courts have no juries, and litigants who lack the money for a private attorney have no right to counsel. (As a result, many parents without financial means must represent themselves.) In the place of the traditional fact-finding apparatus that operates daily in criminal and civil courtrooms - dueling lawyers, and jurors charged with determining the facts of a case from available evidence - family court substitutes a cadre of individuals who make decisions in concert. Foremost is the judge. And it is with the judges, in some ways, that the problem starts.

Few aspirants to the bench relish the idea of refereeing the roughly 20 percent of divorces that are hostile enough to end up in family court. As a result, many assigned to this branch of the judiciary are rookies - paying their dues for a year or two before moving on to the more genteel arenas of civil or criminal law - or lifers without the aptitude to move on. "Family courts are the ugly stepchild of the law," Oakland family law attorney Kim Robinson says. "It's considered the bottom of the barrel. Almost no one wants to be there as a judge. The judges come in with a major attitude about it from the get-go."

Family law judges are aided by a range of subjudicial officials, including psychological evaluators and minors' counsels, attorneys appointed to represent the children in disputed custody cases. The courts also rely on mediators, who attempt to arbitrate custody agreements between parents. Failing such an agreement, they have the authority in many California jurisdictions to make a recommendation about custody rights.

Complaints about how all these people do their jobs aren't new, and in light of their high-stakes, high-conflict work environment, some amount of dissatisfaction among litigants is to be expected. But officials in state government have begun to take the sheer volume of those complaints seriously.

Another problem:

While the system's mistakes affect both mothers and fathers, men are statistically more likely to be the perpetrators of the types of serious crimes that highlight the family courts' shortcomings - as they are in all the cases, substantiated by criminal convictions, examined in this article. The topic of gender's correlation with violent crime is hotly debated, but studies have found that only 6 percent of sex offenses and 5 percent of serious incidents of domestic violence are committed by women.

Sound advice:

"The way that the courts have to work is evidence-based, not theory-based."

And more good advice:

Geraldine Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San Bernardino, likewise says that the family courts need to be revamped so as to devote more attention to evidence - as do other courts of law - rather than the opinions of individuals such as psychologists, mediators, or even judges. "I would like to see judges relying a lot less on psychological evaluations and a lot more on the facts of a case," she says.

Read the entire investigative report here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/