I have a dream too --- That mothers and children can be free from Torture

A special note from Claudine Dombrowski American Mothers Political Party Australian Mothers Political Party

“I have a dream as well--- That mothers and children can be free from Torture -- that No More women and children are killed--That intimate violence be treated as it is, homeland terrorism -- “

“That the federally funded genocide called Fatherhood Initiatives -- be ended, and mothers, the natural guardian, be allowed to raise her own children.”

“I love you my daughter Rikki Dombrowski one of many forced to live in a cage, in silence, in pain without her mother-- without freedom, without voice. Run like the wind Baby---Fly High, Fly Free.”

That the four horsemen begin a reign of “Justice”—on the corrupt human/child traffickers in Topeka, 3rd Judicial District, Shawnee County, Kansas Courts, Judge David Debenham, M. Jill Dykes GAL, ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON, Donald Hoffman, Jason P. Hoffman, David C. Rodeheffer, Safe Visit, Odyssey, Kira Haney, Rene Netherton.

www.AngelFury.org   | www.KS-FCRC.com | www.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com | www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org

“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZLvSnr6s50

The Manhattan Free Press On Line

By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic ... of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson." Hal ...
www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

http://www.scribd.com/AnotherAnonymom

4 Documents

Court GOSSIP File

·· Documents:4

1. 2004 June 4th Court Service Officer Report (again all info from DAD dads friends and dads word- poor

2. 2006 March Hoffmans 'Friend' Submits Report for dad and girlfriend (never meeting mom)

3. 2004 March 31 Loyd Swartz to Judge Emails

4. 2004 May14 Letter to From Girl Scouts on 'Request' by Dad.

See all 4 documents

Edit

10 Documents

Legal Email

· Documents:10

1. 2006 Aug Letter to Judge Johnson

2. 2006 email legal mhp court ag email

3. Hearing Finally Set0 From the Sept 27th, 2006 30 Days Couirt Order

4. Mary Bickford School Sec. Attachments to Letter Request Hearing Dec 2004

5. my reps dorthy and sandy

See all 10 documents

Edit

2 Documents

CINC to keep child from Abuser

· Documents:2

1. 1999 march 23rd CINC (details child sexual, abuse and neglect) pediatrician medical records indicat

2. 5-21-1999 CINC Barton County to Keep Minor Child Safe From Abusive Father Dom Brow Ski

See all 2 documents

Edit

13 Documents

Safe Visit-- Odyssey SUPERVISED VISITATION Reports, memos et el

http://www.projectappleseed.org/safevisit.html Children's Rights Council Supervised Network aka Fathers Rights Initatives

· Documents:13

1. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

2. 2005 March 1 Safe Visit

3. 2005 March 1 Safe Visit1

4. 2005 August 22 - Judge Wilson Report Safe Visit

5. safevisitrequestjune7,200 5

See all 13 documents

Edit

29 Documents

Letters to Judges CSO, CMs, GAL's

· Documents:29

1. 1999 Judges Minutes

2. 1999 Letter From King to Hoffman

3. 2006 Aug Letter to Judge Johnson

4. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

5. Dec 6, 2004 Plea for Hearing

See all 29 documents

Edit

5 Documents

Media

· Documents:5

1. 2009 april -6th shawnee county courts mom guilty contempt and further ordered to remove public recor

2. Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Where's a Pair of Ruby Slippers when you need them

3. showdown in shawnee count1

4. 12-4-1997 KC Star Tony Rizzo-KS Justice Commission -Dombrowski

5. Fall 2001 KS Now -Custody Case From Hell- Claudine Dom Brow Ski

See all 5 documents

3 Documents

Correspondence, AG, Reps, Congress, Federal

1. Jackie Williams Email 2oo7

2. 1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR-836 Hal Richardson- Do

3. 1-20-1998 KS AG Letters and Appointment to Comittee-Claudine Dom Brow Ski

See all 3 documents

Edit

18 Documents

ORDERS

· Documents:18

1. 1999 dad order to pay cs-- but never did

2. 1999 Order Child Support-Richardson

3. 2000 Aug 28 Motion For New Trial Denied --R.King

4. 2000 Dec 29 EXPARTE' Order Suspend Parenting Time with Mom

5. 2000 July 31-- Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON

See all 18 documents

Edit

25 Documents

CSO, Court Memos Emails, letters not on the court record

· Documents:25

1. 1999 Judges Minutes

2. 1999 Letter From King to Hoffman

3. Dec 6, 2004 Plea for Hearing

4. 7-24-2001 Judge 8-30-2001 CM- Memos

5. 2001 Sept. 5 Judge Marla Luckert to Judge Anderson--'Interception of Emails to Judge From Website

See all 25 documents

Edit

38 Documents

Motions

· Documents:38

1. 1999 CS Worksheet

2. 1999 May Motion - Hoffman Files Advance Hearingto Case Manager

3. 1999 Motion by Richardson for Change of Custody From Mom Dombrowski

4. 1999 October 05 Objection Case Manager R. King

5. 2000 April 17--- Motion to Change Custody to Richardson from Dombrowski (mom)

See all 38 documents

Edit

9 Documents

District Attorney Affidavits- Correspondebce

· Documents:9

1. 1990 sarp records 3 1990_1

2. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

3. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

4. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_1

5. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

See all 9 documents

Edit

5 Documents

Criminal Record HAL RICHARDSON

· Documents:5

1. 1990 sarp records 3 1990_1

2. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

3. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_1

4. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

5. 95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

See all 5 documents

Edit

2 Documents

Battered Womens Task Force Records

· Documents:2

1. 1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

2. 1995 - 1996 Battered Womens Task Force-Records of Claudine Dombrowski case no

See all 2 documents

Edit

4 Documents

Medical Records of Abuse

· Documents:4

1. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE

2. Rape 2001 Medical Records_1

3. 1996 Dr. Joel Nance Psych Eval. Judicial Notice Taken by Courts Claudine Dom Brow Ski

4. 1994-1996 Medical records of Abuse claudine dombrowski

See all 4 documents

Edit

12 Documents

KS Appellate -- KS Supreme Court Briefs

· Documents:12

1. 2000 Aug 7 Court of Appeals Response to 1999 Appellate Brief

2. 2000 Aug 8 Appealls Affirms

3. 11-8-1999 supreme court of kansas, appellant petition for review (rebecca king)

4. 12-14-1999 kansas court of appeals brief of appellant dombrowski case 96d217 apeals judge buchele, j

5. 11-20-1997 kansas supreme court petition for review dombrowski v richardson case 96d217

See all 12 documents

Edit

34 Documents

Psych Reports, Guardian ad Litem, Custody Eval, Co-parenting therapy et el

· Documents:34

1. 2007 Oct_1

2. 2003 Sept CM Order Frm Bruns to Llyod Swartz

3. 1997 closed camera inspection of 30 day drug alchohol hal richardson aug_1

4. 1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

5. 2007 Oct.7 Disiplinary Complaint GAL -M_1

See all 34 documents

Edit

13 Documents

Transcripts

· Documents:13

1. 2007 April 4 Hearing Transcript Richardson Dombrowski

2. 2008 Nov 4- Transcript Hearing Judge Debenham- Denting Child to Attend Granny's Funeral

3. transcriptofproceedings12 -16-08

4. 2008 Dec. 16- Transcript of Hearing 'Parenting Time' Judge Debenam- Dom Brow Ski -Denied--Again

5. 6-8-2000 transcript as an order by judge richard anderson

See all 13 documents

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

By Barry Goldstein

The concept of Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases was developed because of the frequency of extreme results in custody cases in which children are endangered, safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children and the results appear to be the opposite of what the evidence and the well being of the children would require. The Battered Mothers Custody Conference was started in response to what we believed were too many of these tragic cases to be viewed as exceptions.

When we look at an individual case, it is hard to be sure the decision is wrong without a careful review of the record. In most cases mothers are pathologized or demonized in order to create the appearance of a justification for the extreme actions taken. When the bad decisions backfire in a way that demonstrates even to the courts that the wrong decision was made, the defenders of the courts like to believe these cases constitute the exceptions to the usual good job done by courts. There is now a large body of research about these cases that show there are too many cases with extreme results and flawed practices to be conveniently dismissed as exceptions. To illustrate the problem, I want to look at four of these extreme cases not because they are exceptions, but because they represent the kinds of mistakes the court system routinely makes and will continue to make until it changes practices that were developed at a time when no research was available and have proven to be detrimental to the children the courts are supposed to protect.

In one New Jersey case I have consulted on, the father has a long history of domestic violence and after the separation, the children disclosed sexual abuse. In this as in all the cases I will be discussing, the mother was unquestionably the primary attachment figure for the children. DYFS, the New Jersey child protective agency, investigated the allegations, but failed to confirm them. As a result, the father was given custody and as the protective mother continued to believe the father was dangerous, and challenge the professionals who failed to protect her children, she has been limited to supervised visitation.

In a well known Kansas case that I have discussed with the protective mother, the father has numerous convictions for domestic violence and other crimes and a poor relationship with the daughter. Despite this, the court gave custody to the father and imposed ever greater restrictions on the mother's access to the daughter. The mother has been active in exposing the broken court system and the court has wasted large amounts of time and money seeking to remove information from the Internet and silence the mother's concerns. The court has retaliated against the mother with reductions in visitation and a variety of sanctions.

In a California case, the mother left the father because of his abusiveness to the mother. Initially, the mother agreed to give the father unsupervised visitation, but as he continued his abuse and threatened to kill the baby, she sought to restrict him to supervised visitation. The judge decided she was a liar, awarded the father unsupervised visitation and threatened further action against the mother if the judge's belief she was lying was confirmed.

In a Maryland case the protective mother also sought to leave her abuser and when he made threats to hurt the children sought a protective order. Shortly before the mother appeared in court, she had sex with her husband. The judge, not understanding that it would not have been safe for the mother to refuse, assumed this meant the father could not possibly be dangerous and granted unsupervised visitation for the father.

One of the problems we have seen repeatedly is that when a court makes a mistake and fails to recognize or respond to danger caused by domestic violence, they will rarely admit to these mistakes. Instead we see the kind of retaliation and punitive measures harmful to children that was used in the New Jersey and Kansas cases. Nevertheless, the courts in California and Maryland would now admit they made the wrong decision. The case in California involved Katie Tagle as the protective mother. The father used the access given him by the judge to kill Baby Wyatt and then himself. Similarly, in Maryland, the mother was Dr. Amy Castillo and the father used the access provided by the judge to kill their three children and then himself.

The judges in California and Maryland are deeply disturbed by the outcome and genuinely sorry for their mistake. At the same time, they have defended their decisions saying they couldn't have known of the father's danger based upon the evidence in front of them. In one sense they are correct. The judges in these four cases all used the same outdated and discredited practices including the popular myth that women often make false allegations in order to gain an advantage in litigation. This contributes to the widespread inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and in turn led to the mistakes in these four cases and other cases endangering over 58,000 children every year.

If all or even a larger portion of the bad decisions led to an immediate and recognizable tragedy like the cases in California and Maryland, the needed reforms would have been adopted long ago and children controlled by custody courts would be protected. Most of the time, however, the cases are more like New Jersey and Kansas where the harm is better hidden and not as dramatic for the public. The children grow up without their primary attachment figure, often suffer private but horrible abuse and many become involved in a wide range of harmful behaviors in response to the direct and indirect abuse inflicted by their abusers. Most will never reach their potential as a result of the mistakes made in the custody courts.

Many communities have developed a practice in which child protective agencies team with the local domestic violence shelter. They cross-train staff and when a possible domestic violence case develops, child protective caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates. This has resulted in child protective agencies being able to better recognize domestic violence and respond in ways that benefit the children. This should be considered best practices. DYFS recently adopted these best practices, but the New Jersey case was first investigated under the old flawed methods. The protective mother has asked DYFS and the court to take a fresh look at the original findings based upon better practices and the new research, but they adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that they made a mistake while using the old discredited practices. The judge has refused to consider any new evidence based on the up-to-date research and insists on proceeding with the case based on the unlikely conclusion that the mother's allegations are false.

As with many mistaken decisions, the mother has been pathologized by the unqualified professionals involved in the case. DYFS regularly uses the same mental health professionals who intuitively understand they are more likely to continue to be used by DYFS if they reach conclusions that support DYFS' findings. There is substantial evidence of confirmation bias in the work of the "neutral" professionals relied on by DYFS and the court. Since they "know" the mother's allegations are false and she continues to believe them, she must be "delusional" and therefore unfit for anything but supervised visitation. If she were delusional, it would stand to reason that this would present a problem in the rest of her life. These professionals have never stopped to consider how she can be successful professionally, academically and in all other phases of her life. Perhaps the DSM should include a new condition "delusional in the custody courts."

At this point, the concern is that because she continues to believe the father abused the children (based on substantial evidence) and so if she had unsupervised visitation would say negative things to the children. This is the beginning and the end of the discussion by the unqualified professionals relied on by the courts. The mother is the primary attachment figure to her children, so separating her from the children creates a higher risk of depression, low-self-esteem and suicide. Where is the research that establishes what harm would be caused to the children if she made these statements and they were false? There is no such research, it is just assumed by professionals unused to looking for research to justify their beliefs and recommendations. How can we know if the alleged harm of the mother making statements about the father is greater than the established harm of taking children away from their primary attachment figure?

The Kansas case is similar in that they have long since ignored or minimized the very real danger the abusive father poses to the child and instead concentrate all their attention on the supposed harm the mother can cause by continuing to believe the father is unsafe and posting information on the Internet that helps to expose a broken court system. Judges are ethically required to avoid actions that create the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Although they phrase the demand to remove material as if it benefitted the child, in reality the real purpose is to hide the history of abuse of the father and the failure of the court to act in the child's best interests. Given the clear conflict of interest (they are seeking to remove materials that criticize the court), at the very least they would need convincing evidence that the mother's beliefs would create a long-term harm to the child. Similarly, the removal of the mother from the child's life, although she is the primary attachment figure creates a serious risk of harm to the child that the court has failed to address. Until the court can cite evidence or research to support its assumptions, the extreme actions present at least an appearance of impropriety. Ironically in both cases the courts put a high priority on placing the children with the parent it viewed as most likely to promote a relationship with the other parent, but when the abusive fathers sought to deny the children a meaningful relationship with the parent the children most need (the primary attachment figure), the same priority of keeping both parents in the children's lives was no longer paramount. This is a common mistake in the custody courts and is one example of the widespread gender bias faced by mothers. In fairness, court professionals are often oblivious to the gender biased approaches they use, but tend to get angry and retaliatory when it is pointed out to them.

I believe it is outrageous that the custody courts have not made children's safety the first priority. In the California and Maryland cases where there was evidence of a history of domestic violence and threats to kill the children, the court had time for only a brief hearing and refused to protect the children's safety resulting in their deaths at the hands of their fathers. At the same time, In the New Jersey and Kansas cases the courts seem to have unlimited time and resources to investigate the "danger" the children might hear their mothers' concern for their safety and well being.

Certainly there are mothers whose contact with the children needs to be limited. This would be in cases where there is a genuine safety risk such as a mother who is a drug addict, physically abuses the children or has a mental illness so severe as to make her unsafe to care of the children. In the absence of such safety issues it is virtually always wrong for courts to take the extreme action of barring unsupervised visitation. This is certainly true when it is done in the context of mothers trying to protect their children from fathers they believe are unsafe. The research establishes that because of the outdated and discredited practices court professionals routinely use, a large majority of findings denying the mothers' allegations are mistaken. Even when her allegations are untrue, it is unlikely the risk she will make negative comments about the father is more significant than the harm of taking a primary attachment figure out of the children's lives. In other words the harm to the children of these visitation restrictions is almost always greater than the harm the court thinks it is avoiding.

This was explained by Joan Zorza in her chapter in our book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, chapter 14 page 26. "Otherwise as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. In this context, it is important for courts that rule against alleged victims of DV to be open to the possibility that they made a mistake. Courts should be reluctant to take punitive or retaliatory actions against mothers who continue to believe their partners abused them." The courts in Kansas and New Jersey could have saved the children a lot of harm (and still can) by following this advice based on the most up-to-date research available.

The elephant in the room is the issue of corruption. Every time courts make decisions that appear to have no relationship to the evidence presented and make orders that cannot possibly benefit the children involved, they create the appearance of corruption. When courts seek to silence protective mothers and retaliate for criticism of the court or their abuser, they are promoting the belief that only corruption could explain these extreme and harmful decisions.

There are cases decided by corruption. The Judge Garson case in Brooklyn, New York is a prime example and his early release from jail after conviction further harmed the courts' reputation. More commonly mental health professionals and some attorneys have adopted beliefs and practices that favor abusers because that is where the money is. Nevertheless, I believe the research establishes that most of these bad decisions are caused by outdated and discredited practices that are deeply ingrained after all these years. In my career, I have seen many good people who I like and respect use these practices and come to extremely harmful conclusions. It is important, however that the legal system open its eyes to this problem, review the new research and stop acting defensively to the justified criticism.

In the summer of Watergate, John Dean testified that he told Nixon about a cancer on the presidency. His assumption was that the illegal and unethical practices were committed only by Nixon's aides. It turned out that Nixon himself was the cancer on the presidency and had to be removed. Today there is a cancer on the custody court system. Some children are dying and others have their lives ruined by unjustified and extreme decisions. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in her Afterward to our new book that once the book is published anyone who continues to use the old practices must be understood to be committing malpractice. The four cases discussed in this article were originally decided based upon the old discredited practices. It is too late to save the children in California and Maryland. This is what happens when inadequately trained professionals rely on the myth that women frequently make false allegations. We can still help the children in New Jersey and Kansas by taking a fresh look at the cases based on the up-to-date research now available. The court system is at a crossroads. It now has the research to reform its training and practices so that they can better protect all the children. I hope they will treat the research as a gift and not an attack and use it to remove the cancer on the court system. In doing so the court system can support my view that the mistaken decisions are not based on corruption.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

You might also like:

Throw the Book at Abusers: Using DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE ...

Domestic Violence Safe Courts Act

Who Does Society Blame for Domestic Violence?

The Proper Role for Mental Health Professionals in Domestic ...

Some Concerns About False Allegations of Abuse Are Accurate

Battered Mothers Gain Fair Attorney Client Terms at Conference (Albany, New York)

 

Battered Mothers Gain Fair Attorney Client Terms at Conference

Attorney, legislator and author Karen Winter opened the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York reviewing attorney billing practices.

Attorney, legislator and author Karen Winner opened the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York with her presentation, “How to Think Like a Lawyer on Legal Billing Issues”, on Friday afternoon January 7, 2011. Winner is well known for her report on family law abuses in Marin County, California which was published during 2000. She developed a Statement of Rights & Responsibilities for use between attorneys and their clients in 1993. The Statement of Rights & Responsibilities was subsequently incorporated into New York State law and was utilized as a model by many other states as well.

Good Attorneys Respect Client Rights

The hallmark of a good attorney is one that establishes expectations at the outset of the business relationship and understands that mutual respect is essential. Winner’s Statement of Rights & Responsibilities for clients include: appropriate, respectful treatment; avoidance of a conflict of interest; competency; fair billing practices; an expectation to be kept informed of the status of your case; a right to privacy; ethical conduct, and; an equal opportunity for representation. If the state you live in has not incorporated a similar Statement of Rights & Responsibilities, be aware the statement can be incorporated by copy into a retainer agreement negotiated with an attorney.

Good Attorneys Zealously Represent Client Interests

The attorney client relationship is a precarious balance of sharing the most intimate details of life with someone who is in business to make a living from dispatching heartache as effectively as possible. Conflicts of interest occur as a result of personal relationships, spousal or business relationships that are frequently not revealed by attorneys. Cronyism can play a part as well. Some small towns’ “business as usual” legal practices frequently include improper ex parte communication or enmeshment of business opportunities.

Some attorneys project that social graces and professionalism require a personal need to “play nice” with other attorneys. They may also choose to placate the judge by avoiding unpopular points of view, thereby putting their need for social acceptance ahead of their obligation to zealously represent their clients’ best interests. It isn't unusual to hear, “That's the way it's done here...” Just like any medical diagnosis, in a crisis, your legal diagnosis merits a second opinion. If you live in a small town where there are only a few attorneys, you can make a request for an “objective memorandum” on the issues you are trying to resolve.

Good Attorneys Have Fair Billing Practices

In many states, attorneys are required to bill within sixty days or forfeit their fees. If you have never been billed by your attorney, you are not legally obligated to pay the bill. However, in the interest of fairness, it isn’t unreasonable to balance how many tasks your attorney has performed for you without charging you. A client should consider several issues before they ‘nickel and dime’ each line item on the attorney’s invoice. Did the attorney forget to bill for an appearance or a letter to your benefit in the past? Is the business relationship generally fair? If so, it may be better to let an oversight slide. It's appropriate to ask your attorney to define appropriate benchmarks for your case to help you fairly gauge their performance and to allow for a reasonable anticipation of the length of time and expense related to your legal issues.

If you entered into an attorney client relationship while you were overwhelmed by the circumstances that led to your asking for representation, once you catch your breath, you can go back and request that your attorney renegotiate the terms of their retainer. If your case transitions, for instance, from a custody case to a child support modification, these separate legal actions are appropriate opportunities to address the incorporation of the Statement of Rights & Responsibilities. A retainer should reflect the scope of work that is actually being performed.

Good Attorneys Arbitrate Billing Disputes

If a client finds addressing financial issues emotionally traumatic or too difficult to understand, it's perfectly reasonable to request that a trusted family member or friend temporarily assist while addressing billing issues. Attorneys are required to maintain contemporaneous records to justify their billing practices. If you're addressing an error in billing, your attorney should be willing to rectify it. If you are being billed for administrative and clerical tasks at the attorney's hourly rate, it's time to address billing practices.

If you come to an impasse with your attorney about their billing practices, request arbitration. In New York State, an attorney who does not provide arbitration papers to a client objecting to a bill, may be subject to forfeiting their fees. In many cases attorneys are required to present their bills to the court for approval of fees. They must be reasonable, itemized, as well as substantiated. If they are not, then a judge has the right to reject the billing or reduce it to more reasonable fees.

Good Attorneys Protect Battered Mothers

Understanding and preserving client rights and responsibilities is particularly important to battered mothers. The controversial nature of obtaining fair, equitable and protective provisions from the courts is a more difficult task for victims of domestic violence. The laws of evidence are not consistently applied within the family courts as they are in other areas of the law. A family law judge is allowed to dictate many aspects of a divorce or custody action without challenge, and are given immunity if they are mistaken.

The discretion of judges, custody evaluators and other legal participants is much more subjective and it is not subject to the same scrutiny by appellate courts. An attorney that is not diligently representing the interests of a battered mother, while draining her financial resources, can deliver negative consequences that last for generations to her children.

To include a copy of Section 1210.1 of the Joint Rules of the Apellate Division (22NYCRR§1210.1):

You are entitled to be treated with courtesy and consideration at all times by your lawyer and the other lawyers and personnel in your lawyer's office.

You are entitled to an attorney capable of handling your legal matter competently and diligently, in accordance with the highest standards of the profession. If you are not satisfied with how your matter is being handled, you have the right to withdraw from the attorney-client relationship at any time (court approval may be required in some matters and your attorney may have a claim against you for the value of services rendered to you up to the point of discharge).

You are entitled to your lawyer's independent professional judgment and undivided loyalty uncompromised by conflicts of interest.

You are entitled to be charged a reasonable fee and to have your lawyer explain at the outset how the fee will be computed and the manner and frequency of billing. You are entitled to request and receive a written itemized bill from your attorney at reasonable intervals. You may refuse to enter into any fee arrangement that you find unsatisfactory. In the event of a fee dispute, you may have the right to seek arbitration; your attorney will provide you with the necessary information regarding arbitration in the event of a fee dispute, or upon your request.

• You are entitled to have your questions and concerns addressed in a prompt manner and to have your telephone calls returned promptly.
• You are entitled to be kept informed as to the status of your matter and to request and receive copies of papers. You are entitled to sufficient information to allow you to participate meaningfully in the development of your matter.
• You are entitled to have your legitimate objectives respected by your attorney including whether or not to settle your matter (court approval of a settlement is required in some matters).
• You have the right to privacy in your dealings with your lawyer and to have your secrets and confidences preserved to the extent permitted by law.
• You are entitled to have your attorney conduct himself or herself ethically in accordance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• You may not be refused representation on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or disability.

Read more at Suite101: Battered Mothers Gain Fair Attorney Client Terms at Conference

Battered Mothers: No Longer Silenced!! Eighth Annual Battered Mother's Custody Conference

Battered Mothers: No longer silenced.

The Battered Mother's Custody Conference focuses on legal and human rights issues surrounding divorce and custody cases for victims of domestic violence.

The Eighth Battered Mother’s Custody Conference: held in Albany, New York January 7 through January 9, 2011. The conference was founded by Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. of Albany, New York and Liliane Heller Miller of Charlotte, North Carolina in 2003. Dr. Hannah’s most recent publication was as co-editor of “Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues” with Barry Goldstein, which was published in 2010.

The conference brings a laser focus to the little known phenomenon of battered mothers losing custody of their children to their abusers in divorce and custody cases. The conference focuses on both domestic and international aspects of the issue; scholarly research; and legal and human rights cases related to domestic violence and child custody cases. Members bring international advocates together once a year. Twenty-eight advocates are scheduled to make presentations at this year's conference.

In a society that sees itself as progressive, and a champion of the needs of the disenfranchised; domestic violence continues to cover the United States in a cloak of disgrace. Many individuals are led to believe that if a victim of domestic violence seeks the aid of police, social service agencies, or sincerely pursues leaving a dangerous marriage through divorce, that the end of her nightmare is close at hand. However, once inside the judicial system, asking for help becomes a myth, as victims of domestic violence do not fare well.

According to attorney Joan Meir in a 2005 article published on “Stop Family Violence Now” (Meier), within U. S. divorce and custody cases, contested cases by abusers result in fully seventy percent (70%) of abusers receiving custody of the couple’s children. Trends like these as well as an increase in petitions protesting the violation of human rights to the Inter America Human Rights Commission, tell a different story.

Ironically, the U.S. was once seen as a safe harbor and respite from injustice in other parts of the world. The U.S. was petitioned as the grantor of political asylum to world citizens suffering from unfair political and legal persecution. Yet, the tide began to turn when the first U. S. citizen was granted asylum from the United States by The Netherlands in 1994.

Holly Ann Collins appealed for protection from an abusive ex-spouse and the right to raise her three children in The Netherlands. Scheduled to appear this weekend, Ms. Collins and her son Zachary Collins will discuss their experience. Now grown, Ms. Collins’ children serve as advocates for the plight of children caught in the middle by the court systems. Her daughter Jennifer Collins founded CA3, “Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse” in 2008.

Even in cases where the murder of a couple’s children was the ultimate tragic result, injustice has proven extremely difficult to remedy within U.S. Courts for mothers plagued by domestic violence. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, that the state of Colorado was not obligated to enforce the restraining order that was issued to protect Jessica Gonzales' family from her ex-husband, Simon Gonzales. The murder of her three daughters at the hands of their father was battled out in U. S. courts for five years.

Gonzales made ten requests over a ten hour period of time asking police to enforce her restraining order against Simon Gonzales, but they repeatedly put her off. Ultimately her ex-husband opened fire into the police station with an assault weapon, was killed, and her daughters were found dead in his bullet riddled car in front of the police station.

With both protection and justice denied by her own country, Ms. Lanahan (formerly Gonzales) filed a complaint with the Inter America Human Rights Commission protesting the violation of her human rights. The case, Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, was accepted for argument by the IAHRC in 2007.

Subsequently at least ten more victims of domestic violence have filed petitions protesting the violation of their human rights against the United States with the IAHRC.

Their cases known as (Dombrowski et el v US 2007) are currently pending acceptance.

While the United States never ratified the signed agreement making it accountable to the IAHRC for human rights offenses, hope remains that if justice will not motivate the U. S. government to take protective action on behalf of battered mothers and their children, shame will.

Meier, Joan. “Rates at Which Batters Receive Custody”. Stop Family Violence, a Project of the Tides Center. NewYork, NY. November 30, 2005. stopfamilyviolence.org

Read more at Suite101: Eighth Annual Battered Mother's Custody Conference Convenes http://www.suite101.com/content/eighth-annual-battered-mothers-custody-conference-convenes-a329059#ixzz1B1NsTJiJ

Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back – BMCC, Albany NY

Leading author and therapist Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back at the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York 1/7/11

The 8th Battered Mother’s Custody Conference featured author and activist Lundy Bancroft, who has for more than a decade addressed the issues of battered mothers who lost custody to their abusers in family courts. Well known as the founder of the Battered Mothers Testimony Project in Massachusetts, Bancroft is also the author of three books on the dynamics and subsequent effects of domestic violence. He was the winner of the 2004 Pro Humanitate Award from the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, for his book, “The Batterer as Parent”.

Battered Mothers Fight Myths

The past seven Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences validated and quantified an emergent judicial and human rights crisis in our family courts. Judges are delivering abused children to the very abusers that their protective mothers painstakingly escaped. For the first time in the conference’s history, Bancroft introduced fighting back against this injustice as the theme for this year’s conference meetings and speakers.

The prevailing myth is that once out of an abusive marriage, the mother is now safe from her abuser. But the truth is that 75% of women who are injured or murdered by their abusers suffer the attack within the first thirty days of escaping the relationship[1]. Despite the divorce, many women endure ongoing torment by their former spouse and abuser because they are permanently connected through their common children.

An abuser stalking, threatening, and torturing the mother, and abusing their children in order to hurt her, are very common realities. The courts perceive repeated requests for protection as strategic chicanery and often fail to validate an ongoing threat to the mother.

Paradoxically, many battered mothers are in the unenviable position of being challenged by Child Protective Services to ‘leave their abusive marriage to protect their children’, despite the statistical odds of their own demise, and the unlikelihood that law enforcement will provide or enforce protective orders. Once embroiled in the family court systems, the battered mothers are marginalized and accused of lying to gain unfair advantage over abusive fathers.

No amount of presenting the actual facts and figures seems to gain these protective mothers and their children safe harbor. Judges and other legal participants routinely place children with their abusers. There are both domestic and international human rights implications to this issue with more than 1,000 families a week now facing this crisis; Bancroft’s expertise is needed more than ever[2].

Battered Mothers Fight Courts

The first shock a protective mother must overcome is the reality that the justice system does not exist within the family court system. On television, in our classrooms, and in the news, the myth that our legal system is fair and just is promulgated. Many protective mothers discover that the truth is that the rules which apply in a criminal court or in business related civil cases are not applied in family courts. Rules of evidence and consequences for challenging the status quo are harsh and unpredictable. Judges have unilateral discretion to define what happens, how it happens and whether she is even allowed to tell anyone else about the court’s orders.

Images

A protective mother stripped of her children, is also stripped of her right to parent; her right of free speech; her right of protection; and her right to protest these injustices. Our Bill of Rights is frequently ignored, and the judicial system affords immunity for the legal participants including Judges, Child Custody Evaluators, Child Protective Services, and Law Enforcement Agencies. If they misjudge, and the battered mother or her children die, then no one is accountable. Do you risk contempt of a court order in an attempt to protect your children?

Battered Mothers Fight Child Abuse

Often the abuser begins to deliberately alienate the protective mother from her children, telling the children that she abandoned them, did not want to mother them, lies about his abuse, or fails to parent them effectively. The child begins to doubt their own ability to perceive reality. They may feel a forced sense of loyalty to their abuser. If the children do not follow his lead and mistreat their mother, what are the physical and emotional consequences they suffer at the hands of the abusers?

Bancroft advises protective mothers and their support systems to remember that the purpose of the fight is to keep as close to your children as possible. Keep things calm, remind them that you love them. Rather than debate which parent is “right” in a never ending battle for the right to exist without the abuser’s influence – ask your child, “What do YOU think?” Maintain the child’s ability to read the situation, assess it and come to an independent conclusion. When the abuser misrepresents a mother’s feelings or actions, correct the lie, and encourage the child to rely on their own personal experience with their mother.

Battered Mothers Fight Isolation

Many Americans erroneously believe family court dynamics are identical to other courts’ standard of evidence in the United States. Therefore they come to the conclusion that a mother who loses custody in civil proceedings must have done something to deserve the loss. The stigma of losing one’s child is an isolating experience. The battered mother finds the experience so painful that she abandons any attempt to explain what happened to her.

To overcome the stigma, the battered mother may attend conferences like the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference; join Facebook Causes; and support websites related to healing from and fighting domestic violence; connect with other people with like experiences; and research what is happening in other parts of the country. Books like those published by authors Lundy Bancroft, Mo Therese Hannah, Barry Goldstein, Amy Neuman, Michael Lesher, Wendy Murphy, Karin Huffer and others can provide specific legal, emotional and political strategies to effect change.

Battered Mothers Fight Human Rights Injustices

Political initiatives are reflected in the progress of landmark legal cases in human rights; follow the outcome of cases such as Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, as well as other international cases concerning domestic violence under consideration by the Inter America Human Rights Commission. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department’s refusal to enforce a protective order against Simon Gonzales that resulted in the murder of their three children. Gonzales (now Lanahan) is protesting the violation of her human rights.

As the first U. S. Citizen to receive political asylum from The Netherlands, Holly Collins and her three children fled the United States in 1994 to be free of domestic violence when they could not obtain protection from family courts. Ms. Collins plans to return to live in the U. S., just as her youngest child reaches adulthood. How our country responds to the knowledge that a mother was forced to flee her own country for protection will be an important barometer of progress.

 

[1] Indiana Law School Protective Order Project, “What is Domestic Violence?” Website. Referenced January 12, 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/pop/domestic_violence/

[2] Silberg, Joyanna, “How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”, The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, Press Release. September, 22, 2008, http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html, referenced January 12, 2011

Read more at Suite101: http://www.suite101.com/content/author-lundy-bancroft-teaches-battered-mothers-to-fight-back-a331711#ixzz1B1NATWa2

How Narcissists/Batterers Abuse Children During Divorce

Narcissistic Parents Emotionally Abuse Children. -

Narcissists often use children as pawns during and after divorce. Learn to identify this emotional abuse of children caught in the middle.

The emotional abuse by a narcissist is pervasive and insidious. It impacts not only the narcissist’s spouse but his or her children as well. Once divorce proceedings begin, the narcissist’s abuse will likely escalate. Narcissists will use any means possible to gain control of the situation or to make themselves look better. Children become perfect pawns for narcissistic parents to use against their spouses. Identifying how narcissistic parents abuse their children is the first step to devising strategies to minimize abuse and help children cope.

Using Children as Pawns in Divorce

Narcissistic parents will often seek custody of children during a divorce even if previously they were not involved parents. It’s important to them to appear to be the better parent. Also, if they have custody of the children, it gives them another way to continue to control and abuse their spouse.

If narcissists don’t get custody of the children, after divorce, they may use visitation as a means of control and harassment. They may ask for many changes to visitation schedules to accommodate optional work, social and vacation events. Most often these requests will be to not to have the children when they are scheduled to. Narcissists may refuse to accommodate the spouse’s requests even when the requests are made for the benefit of the children.

Narcissists may also be late in picking up the children for visitation or not picking them up at all. They may make last minute changes and expect to be accommodated. When they are not, they will cite this as an example of how unreasonable their spouse is. Narcissists may also take advantage of third parties such as school, daycare or friends and family who don’t know the agreements made with the other parent. It’s important to note that all of these tactics by the narcissist have nothing to do with the best interest of the children. It’s simply a way for the narcissist to play games and have control.

Emotional Abuse by a Narcissistic Parent

Narcissists will use people in whatever way in necessary to get what they want. This world view also applies to their children. They will abuse their children regardless whether they stay married to the other parent or not. During and after divorce, a narcissist’s emotional abuse of his or her children may seem more direct or blatant. Quite often, this is simply another tactic employed by narcissists to further control their former spouse. Unfortunately, the children pay the price for the narcissist’s games.

Narcissists are masters of lying. They will lie to their children and distort reality the same as they do to everyone else. Often, narcissists will sacrifice their children’s well-being in an attempt to save face. This leaves the children feeling confused and unsure of their own reality and judgment. Narcissists will ask their children to lie for them, keep secrets and to spy on the other parent.

Narcissistic parents do not respect their children’s desires. They may make promises to the children in order to gain compliance from the child, then refuse to honor the promises. Children may miss out on birthday parties, sporting events or other activities important to them in order to accommodate the narcissistic parent’s wishes. The children soon learn that what they want is not important when with the narcissistic parent.

Coping with a Narcissistic Parent

It’s important to understand that it’s impossible to control a narcissist’s behavior. Neither the narcissist’s spouse nor children are responsible for his or her behavior. Narcissists are who they are. The best the other parent can do for their children and themselves is to separate themselves as much as possible from the narcissist.

First and foremost, former spouses of narcissists need to seek professional support for themselves and their children. It’s important that both children and spouses of narcissists have someone outside the situation to support and validate their feelings and reality while trying to cope with a crazy-making narcissist.

Spouses also need to hire a lawyer who understands narcissism and how to best deal with it in court. It’s often best for abused spouses to seek full custody of the children. They should, however, be prepared to offer reasonable visitation. In addition, spouses of narcissists will do well to put as many negotiation points about the children as they can think of in the divorce decree. These include visitation, pick-up times, phone calls, school activities and vacations. It may seem excessive or restraining but in the long run these written agreements will often be easier than constantly renegotiating with an unreliable and emotionally abusive former spouse.

Divorce is never easy on children. Coping with a narcissistic parent makes a stressful situation even more difficult. Learning to identify the games narcissists play can help parents to minimize the emotional abuse children suffer at the hands of a narcissistic parent.

Sources:

Bancroft, Lundy. When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse. New York: Berkley Books, 2004.

Hotchkiss, Sandy. Why is is Always About You? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism. New York: Free Press, 2002.

Skerritt, Richard. Surviving the Storm: Strategies and Realities for Divorcing a Narcissist. Kennett Square, PA: Dalkeith Press, 2009.

Read more at Suite101: How Narcissists Abuse Children During Divorce http://www.suite101.com/content/how-narcissists-abuse-children-during-divorce-a289326#ixzz1B1OZTz1U

LIVE STREAM FOR THE The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/battered-mothers-custody-conference

 

The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Total views: 7CONFERENCE AGENDA

Friday, January 7th, 2011

4:00 – 5:30 p.m. Special pre-conference workshop: Karen Winner, Esq. How to Think Like a Lawyer on Legal Billing Issues

• Registration begins at 4:00 p.m.

• Exhibitors, book sales, and Silent (Chinese) Auction beginning at 5 p.m.

6:00 Opening greetings by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and other BMCC co-sponsors; song by Tynia Canada

6:30 – 8:00 Lundy Bancroft

8:00 – 9:00 p.m. Meet and Greet with Coffee, Tea, and Cookies

9:00 - Special Friday Night Workshop: Meditation with Rev. Anne Curtin

Saturday, January 8th, Morning Session

8:30 Plenary I: Attorney and Author Wendy Murphy, J.D. : Landmark Massachusetts ruling: Ensuring the Rights of Disabled Victims in Judicial Proceedings.

9:15 – 10:15 Introductions by Barry Nolan Plenary II: Protective Mother Holly Collins and her son Zachary Collins with Attorney Alan Rosenfeld, J.D.

10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 11:30 Barry Goldstein, J.D., Joan Zorza, J.D. and Nancy Erickson, J.D. Panel on the book: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Abuse: Legal Practices and Policy Issues

11:30 – 12:15 Psychologist and Expert Joy Silberg, Ph.D.: Perspective of a Psychologist on the Front Lines

12:15 – 12:30 Break

Saturday, January 8th, Afternoon Session

12: 30 – 1:30 Saturday Working Luncheon: Professor and Producer Garland Waller: Screening and Discussion of No Way Out But One (working title): An Independent Documentary on Holly Collins - The First Woman to Be Granted Political Asylum on Grounds of Domestic Violence

1:45 – 3:30 Panel: Karin Huffer, Ph.D., Renee Beeker, Wendy Murphy, J.D., & Robin Yeamans, J.D.: Groundbreakers Present A New Trajectory: Managing Family Court Cases

3:45 – 4:45 Concurrent Workshop Session I

1. Renee Beeker & Paul Holdorf: The National Family Court Watch Project

The National Family Court Watch Project believes that large-scale data will reveal national trends and ignite a call for change in the family court system. The project is a conversation springboard and uses the technique of "quiet observer" to get a sense of what's happening inside family courts. We report those findings publicly through a new conduit and work with judges and the public to find solutions. We will be sharing latest data update as well as information about the increasing involvement from professionals and educators as we expand this effort around the country.

2. Joy Silberg: Using Expert Witness Testimony in Family Court Child Abuse Cases

This presentation will review some of the effective ways to use expert witness testimony in family court child abuse cases. The roles for an expert in these cases can include criticizing existing custody evaluations, reviewing symptoms and disclosures of the child, or being court appointed to do a child protection evaluation. The presenter will emphasize how to avoid pitfalls and what points to emphasize when helping a judge look at the information from a new perspective.

Saturday, January 8th, Afternoon Session

Concurrent Workshop Session I (cont.)

3. Massachusetts Protective Mothers for Custodial Justice, Inc. RESPECT FOR ADVOCACY-- PART II of “The Basics” RESPECT FOR ADVOCACY (PART II of “The Basics”)

I. Advocacy Basics

Working with Battered Mothers: Active Listening, Getting to the Matter, Getting to the HELP!

Supporting Battered Mothers: Resources, Abilities

Using Systems that Support Battered Women, Using Supports for Battered Mothers: What They Offer, What They Can’t & Why We All Need Each Other

II. Advocacy as Activism

• When to Resist, When To Comply & Whose Call That Is

• Unity: Defining our “Same Page”

Eliminating the Extraneous

Defending What We Fought For In the New War for our Children

4. Karin Huffer, Crystal Morgan-Huffer, & Jason Huffer: Silenced No More - Self Protection in the High Tech Age: You are Not Paranoid--Just Hypervigilant and Smart

Thirty self-protective actions you must take to ensure your safety and self protection in this high tech age. Domestic Violence victims suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and if they are stalked, intruded upon, and left unprotected they suffer legal abuse syndrome. Learn to safeguard yourself in and out of court proceedings. Privacy protection, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, and Violence Against Women Act provide more protection than you may think.

5. Barry Goldstein, J.D.: How to Use the Book "Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and

Custody." Earlier in the day, Joan Zorza, Nancy Erickson and Barry Goldstein will discuss how to use the research in the book to help your case. The workshop will be a more interactive session in which protective mothers can ask questions about how to use the book in their individual cases.

5:00 – 6:00 p.m. Concurrent Workshop Session 2

1. Erica Olsen: Violence Against Women in the Digital Age

Do you know how easy it is for some abusers to track their victim's every move, to monitor everything they do on a computer, in their cars, or on certain phones? Like many criminals, perpetrators of stalking and domestic violence are often ahead of the curve on the use of technology. Through the Internet, high-tech global positioning systems (GPS), cell-phones and handheld computers, abusers use technology to further harm and control their victims. Understanding technology misuse is crucial to both supporting victims and holding offenders accountable. Drawing from survivor experiences and through videos and demonstrations, this training will illustrate the safety risks of phone, GPS, camera, Internet, and computer technologies.

2. Karen Borders: High Risk vs. High Conflict Family Law Matters, Identifying the Differences

This workshop will discuss Family Violence Risk Assessments which address high-conflict risk cases, which get labeled as high conflict cases and rarely get the proper assessment, leaving the risk to children and to abuse victims. While the goal remains to serve the best interest of the children, it is critical to prove or disprove any allegations before determining best interest of the children. This new risk based approach is well rooted in evidence-based practices and truly addresses the best interest of the children while keeping safety as the priority. Courts throughout the United States are recognizing this multi-disciplinary team approach and methods of assessment in handling these volatile matters.

3. Nancy S. Erickson, J.D., LL.M., M.A. (Forensic Psychology): On Custody Evaluations

We will address as many of the following questions as time permits: Why are Custody Evaluations (CEs) ordered by courts? Have custody courts always used evaluators? Are they helpful to courts? Which mental health professionals (MHPs) are authorized to conduct them? How can I tell which MHPs are good evaluators? What rules, if any, are they bound to follow? What are the financial and other costs of CEs? How can I avoid an order for a CE? How can I prepare for one if necessary? How can I fight a bad one -- including one that uses against protective parents junk science like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? What other psychological theories should I watch out for? What psychological “tests” are often used? Are they valid and reliable? How can I fight a bad CE in court? How can I report an incompetent or biased evaluator?

4. Dara Carlin & Dr. Joyce Braak: Advocacy with an Open Case

Professional advocacy is one thing but when you're a mom with an open family court case, you're dealing with an entirely different ball of wax; a mistake for you doesn't mean a disciplinary reprimand - it could cost you your kids. This workshop will identify factors to bear in mind as you fight for your children (and your life!) with consideration for strategies that have worked (and failed). More than simply giving a presentation, I hope to encourage an exchange of experiences that will generate a list of ideas that we can disseminate to all conference participants. Mom Bloggers, especially - please come!

5.

Saturday, January 8th, Evening Session

6:00 – 7:30 p.m. Screening of the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America in the main conference ballroom (take-out dinner available on site at hotel restaurant)

7:30 pm Ben Atherton Zeman: Voices of Men Redux [Warning note: Includes graphic images of violence.]

9:00 Special Saturday Night After-Hours Session: Strength in Numbers: Sharing stories, sharing strategies, and organizing at the local level. Organized by Nancy Erickson, J.D., Janice Levenson (Protective Mothers Alliance), Renee Beeker (National Family Court Watch), and Paul Holdorf, J.D.

We are calling all protective mothers to meet and organize at their local levels. We will discuss general objectives and report on progress made in 2010 for protective moms (PMs). We will then break up into small groups based on residence (or location of the court involved, whichever is more important): county, part of the state, state, or other geographic area. In the small groups, facilitated by PMs, we will find out what are the worst problems for protective moms in that geographic area, what are the resources for PMs, and what we think can be done to help PMs. Each group will report back to the larger group, and we will plan our strategies for 2011.

Sunday, January 9th Morning Session

8:30 Plenary 2: Attorney Toby Kleinman: Our children are at risk, and their health is endangered: How can we hold the court accountable to protect them?

9:30 Plenary 3: Attorney Michael Lesher: Facing family court dangers: CPS, law guardians, experts -- Oh, my!

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 12:30 Panel: Join Up! Leaders of the protective mothers’ movement share what they’ve been doing—and ask you to join them

• Janice Levinson/Lundy Bancroft, Protective Mothers Alliance

• Kathleen Russell, Center for Judicial Excellence

• Holly Collins

• Dara Carlin

• Ayanna Najuma, Inspirational Spirit of the Phoenix

• American Mothers Political Party

-Nancy Carroll: www.RightsForMothers.com

-Claudine Dombrowski: www.angelfury.com

-Lorraine Tipton: www.mamaliberty.wordpress.com

-Melanie Smith: Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

-Randi James- www.RandiJames.com

• Kathy Lee Scholp & Jay Sutter: H.eroes O.n L.ine DE.fense N.etwork

12:45 – 2:00 Sunday luncheon-- Q & A and Community Dialogue

2:00 Close ( show less )

Videos

Highlights

• The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 01/07/11 02:33PM0 views

• The 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 01/07/11 02:16PM2 views