The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Archive for March, 2010|Monthly archive page

The So-Called Parental Alienation Christian View: Don’t Go Trying to Get All Religious on Us Now

In domestic law on March 31, 2010 at 2:06 pm

 

By the Brilliant Randi James

Ask yourself: Can you tell the difference between a nice wholesome Christian family and one who is not? And if so, what is/are the difference(s)? Don’t fool yourself for the sake of trying to be holier than thou. We see Christian families on the news everyday for a variety of incidents that aren’t so wholesome. But, someone will say they aren’t Christian enough, they have backslid, they aren’t really Christian, etc.

In Monika Logan’s attempted appeal to the Christianity in you, she begins with this excerpt by Judith Wallerstein, a "scholar" whose works has been repeatedly misrepresented:

I discovered a well- known scholar’s excerpt, by Judith Wallerstein that reads, “We’ve seriously underestimated the long-term impact of divorce on children [and]…the numerous ways a child’s experience differ when growing up in a divorced family.”I am blessed as I do not know what it is like to be a child of divorce. I was raised in an intact home.

First off, the long-term impact isn’t necessarily the divorce. This has been stated countless times in research. It is the conditions that existed prior to the actual divorce and then extend thereafter. Divorces don’t happen in a vacuum.Children are often witnesses and participants of dysfunctional behaviors that pre-existed in the "intact" family. And what is an "intact" family anyway? Merely one that hasn’t divorced? Divorce is only a legal procedure in which the government is involved. Intact doesn’t mean better, or non-dysfunctional. As outsiders, we can only know what families choose to reveal to us. Everyone has a public and private face, even Christians.

Lastly, I am keenly aware that Churches frowns upon divorce and that Parental Alienation (PA) is misunderstand .I was taught that God hates divorce (see Malachi 2:16 NIV), but also was taught that God forgives. He is a God of grace and one that allows for second chances.

Churches frown upon divorce because of the inherently patriarchal and sexist attitudes that exist within its membership–amazingly, the same attitudes we see outside of the church. That God hates divorces but forgives is evidence of the contradictory nature of the Bible. People use whatever part of the Bible they see fit to support their opinion.

The idea of divorce does not occur to newly marrying couples.

It doesn’t?

Divorce was also not Gods original intention. God allowed a clause about divorce to be included in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1). God wanted to prevent men from dumping their wives for frivolous reasons. Subsequently, I started to wonder about children who dump their parents for frivolous reasons

Did God say anything of "allowing" women to "dump" their husbands? And what exactly would be regarded as frivolous reasons? Great segue to her opinion.

In some divorces, especially vitriolic divorces, one parent attempts to turn the child against the other parent. The parent desires to wreak havoc on the other parent’s relationship with the child; a few methods include cruel words and the allure of material gifts. Messages made by parents that are perpetual and poisonous produce troubled kids. Eventually, the relentless actions and words of embittered parents pay off. These kids’ discard relationships of once-loved parents and treat their parents as their worst foe.

Are these vitriolic divorces the same as the "high-conflict" ones? If so, we cannot make any assumptions about why this level of vitriol exists in a family. Again, remember, that families choose to reveal what they want to reveal. We cannot know what the child’s original feelings were about his or her parent(s) unless we were a part of that child’s inner world. Troubled kids are produced by a lot more than poisonous messages–troubled kids need an environment in which there are few resources/little support. Troubled kids are not treated like people but rather objects. Troubled kids’ emotions and space are not validated or respected. The truth is, we cannot know the depth of feeling any child once had for his/her parents, based off our own observation, or the word of the other parent.

Sadly, many Christian parents whose kids reject them feel alone in their shame. Many believers fall prey to the idea that good parents always have good kids. They frequently support this standard by one preferred scripture, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6, NIV). Other scriptural lessons are discarded, such as Job or Aaron’s sons as seen in Leviticus 10.

Many kids reject their parents, even non-Christian ones. This is on account of a range of behaviors of that parent. Is it so hard to understand that just because someone is the parent, blood-relative, etc, that there is no guarantee that the temperaments will match…that they will have similar interests as their children? Love is not guaranteed to be reciprocated, nor can you dictate how someone else loves you. Children are people. How should we treat children? Well, Monika cites Proverbs 22:6, but a few verses later in, 22:15, it says this: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." She also mentions that Christians disregard Leviticus 10, where you can also find this part: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” (20:9) Hmmm.

Divided homes breeds deception, deceit, and disparagement. Common Christian advice is that parent’s post-divorce should keep the same chores, discipline, and rules. This guidance is helpful, but is not applicable to cases of PA. Dr. Warshak points out… “your children are being manipulated to serve as vehicles to express their other parents hostility…” (p.38). Parent’s in these cases do not care about the rejected parent’s wishes or their children’s best interests. It is a form of emotional abuse.

Non-divided homes breed the same things. How do you deal with it in those cases? The emphasis shouldn’t be placed on thehome though, it is the people involved in the situation. Kids thrive with consistency and thus the same schedules should continue as possible. But we don’t really hear that these days. All we hear is joint-custodya situation that breeds no kind of continuity other than being a timeshare product. Separated parents can share parenting, where parenting was once shared before. Separated parents should not split 50-50 custody, where there was no 50-50 split in the child’s time previously.

Children are being manipulated by parents who come to the sudden realization that, without the other parent’s assistance, he/she has no real connection to his/her child. That parent did not build, maintain, and continue to foster a relationship with his/her own child. So now, in absence of any support, that parent refuses to understand the current dynamics are based on the past. And so that parent’s escape, is to blame "alienation" on the parent to whom the child is closer. The parental alienation tactic allows an otherwise physically, emotionally, or spiritually absent parent to experience the absolution that is provided in Christianity.

In the cases where that parent was the abuser in the family, often times we cannot know because it was that same nice, wholesome, upstanding Christian neighbor.Abusers do seek to undermine the child’s relationship with the parent to whom he/she is closer. This phenomena is not parental alienation.Parental alienation theorists are trying to mix all the definitions up in order to obscure an agenda–that the parental alienation tactic is historically based on acover for child sexual abuse. Even in the original definition of parental alienation, if domestic abuse was present, parental alienation could not be considered as a "diagnosis." The definition continues to expand.

Alienated children often resemble children that are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Warshak, 2010, p. 27). These kids are angry, resentful, spiteful and vindictive . The only difference is that their unwarranted behavior is towards one parent, not both. I do not think Parental Alienation is the thorn in our flesh (see 2 Corinthians 12:17). Target parents are often humble enough. Parents and children need support, prayer, and love. Prayer is also needed for ex-spouses’ as many are un-happy and lonely after an un-wanted divorce. We should reserve judgment for God.

    In an interesting conclusion, Monika tries to merge psychology with one more Christian rambling. Kids in any type of dysfunction are angry and resentful. As they fail to see any resolution to their problems, these kids can become spiteful and vindictive. These traits are not limited to the kids. And without careful inquiry we are not in a position to know whether that behavior is warranted, or not. We are also not in a position as outsiders to force our beliefs upon these children, especially in cases where domestic abuse may be the underlying cause. We are only looking at the signs and symptoms as they are revealed to us. What we can offer is support and belief in the children’s words as they choose to present it to us. They need one positive adult with whom they can bond, and that adult should be his/her preferred parent.

    As for the ex-spouse, some are un-happy, some are happier. Some are lonely, some re-partner quickly, some have no intention of partnering, some are dedicated to their child[ren], some have completely other interests. We don’t need to assume. But by placing psychology into the dynamic of families, we are serving as judges. What would God think about that?Hopefully the Christian God is different from the God that Catholic priests and children are referring to. Then again, if He believes in parental alienation, maybe not.

    Related Posts :

    parental alienation fraud

  • Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces…

  • Glenn Sacks Gets Served by Domestic Violence Survivor

  • Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

  • Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask

  • Parental Alienation in "High Conflict" Divorce: Questions We Must Ask

  • Every Child Has Parental Alienation Syndrome, Even David Goldman’s Son!

      whores of the court

      • Canadian Therapists and Lawyers Want to Limit Your Right to File Charges Against Assessors in Child Custody Cases

      • Amy Baker and Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is This What Scientific Research Looks Like?

      • Crooks Coming to Canada

      • Wanted: The PAS Accused

      • Reconnecting With Your Children in the Face of Danger

      • Denouncing Parental Alienation

          shared parenting

          • Same Ol Constitutional Argument for Fathers Having Child Custody

          • Gender Bias in the Florida Court Sytem: Economics of Divorce

          • The Shared Care Debate in Australia: How to Misrepresent Everything

          • Canada, Child Custody, and the Shared Parenting Fail

          • Joint Custody: Plausible, Attractive, but no Evidence Supporting It

          • Only a Minority of Families with Court-Ordered Joint Custody are Able to Coparent

              result of divorce

              • Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask

              • Parental Alienation in "High Conflict" Divorce: Questions We Must Ask

              • Gender Bias in Florida’s Court System: Equitable Distribution and Spousal Support

              • ANYONE Can Diagnose Parental Alienation Syndrome

              • Gender Bias in Florida’s Court System: Judicial Attitudes

              • Gender Bias in Florida’s Court System: Access to Justice

              • Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                Where Do All Of The Perpetrators Go?

                In domestic law on March 31, 2010 at 1:38 pm

                 

                Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

                Just six days ago, a Laurence D’Alessandrowas found guilty ofpossessing over 16000 images of child pornography. It was deemed, "The very worst" "inhumane" and "evil".

                He was sentenced to 3 years jail. In 3 years time, this man will be out in our community, maybe already married with children or about to be married with children. We wont know. Some unlucky women and child may fall prey to such a predator in the future. With so many privacy laws protecting perpetrators, she may not know until its too late. If she makes the decision to protect the child and leave, he can still obtain unquestioned rights of access to the child through the family court. How that stands in legal terms of the Family court is "in the past".

                In a report from the Sentencing Advisory Council, the average rate of sentencing is an appalling figure on the value of a child’s livelihood:

                Believe it or not, there is actually lesser sentence if the child is related to the abuser:

                Considering the average jail term for incest being 4 years, the crimes that warrant higher sentences must be more abhorrent or are they?

                1. A women is sentenced for 5 years over property investment.(source)
                2. A man was sentenced for 3 years for denying the holocaust(source)
                3. Copyright infringements are up to 5 years(Source)
                4. Maximum penalty for juveniles caught stealing is 7- 8 years(source)
                5. A man receives 7 years for taking bribes(Source)

                So where do the perpetrators go?

                Back into the community, into our unsuspecting lives, taking advantage of a legal system that is wholeheartedly supporting them. Again and again.

                Posted by Samantha at 10:12 PM

                Labels: Australia, Child Sexual Abuse, Custody, Family Court, Incest, Parent Alienation Disorder, Perpetrators, Rape, Sex Offender dad

                Artigos Relacionados:

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                Jealous father who killed his two children sentenced to 28 years

                In domestic law on March 30, 2010 at 4:48 pm

                 

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/30/jealous-father-killed-children

                Petros Williams strangled children with internet cables as a message to estranged wife who had used online dating sites

                guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 March 2010 14.45 BST

                Petros Williams court case Petros Williams was jailed for 28 years. Photograph: Greater Manchester Police/PA

                A jealous father who strangled his two children to death to get revenge on his estranged wife was jailed today for a minimum of 28 years.

                Petros Williams, 37, killed his four-year-old daughter, Yolanda, and two-year-old son, Theo, in October last year at their home in Manchester. He throttled them in their sleep with internet connection cables, a method chosen as a message to his wife, who had been using online dating sites. He denied murder.

                Sentencing him at Manchester crown court, the trial judge, Mr Justice Parker, said it was "hard to conceive any more shocking crime".

                In the days before the murders, Williams made a farewell video in which he told the children to face the camera and say: "We will miss you, Mummy." He was furious that his estranged wife, Morongoe Molemohi, 30, had begun seeing men whom she met using dating websites.

                A jury found Williams guilty of both murders after 90 minutes of deliberation.

                During the five-day trial Williams claimed his wife carried out the killings.

                Passing sentence, Parker told him: "There is no doubt that you intended to kill them. It is hard to conceive any more shocking crime than a parent deliberately taking the life of his or her child.

                "We saw from the video that Yolanda and Theo were happy children, full of love and laughter, with a whole lifetime ahead of them and, above all, absolute trust in their father who, for entirely selfish purposes, would end their brief lives.

                "You remain in denial. You have simply refused to come to terms with the enormity of your deeds." He told him he had shown "not an ounce of remorse" adding: "Your pity has been exclusively reserved for yourself."

                The prosecution said the internet cables were used as a symbolic act of punishment to his wife. It was described as "a spiteful, selfish reaction to the breakdown of his marriage".

                The couple moved from their native Zimbabwe to the UK in 2002 and had lived in Manchester for five years but their marriage suffered difficulties and both had affairs, the jury was told.

                The video was among several notes found at his flat in Whalley Range, Manchester. It was labelled: "Daddy, Yolly, Theo. Byee The End", with a note attached which that read: "Play the video, made for your memories, thank you, Petros." It shows the children in the living room, with Williams asking them: "Where’s Mummy?"

                On the day of the murders, Molemohi received a silent call from her estranged husband. She found Williams lying on the double bed with the children and initially thought they were asleep, but realised her son and daughter were not breathing. Williams was lying next to them dazed, but uninjured, next to a noose. She dialled 999 and tried to resuscitate them, but it was too late. Postmortem examinations showed both had been strangled.

                Their father was arrested and collapsed when he was taken into custody.

                Senior investigator Vinny Chadwick of Greater Manchester police described Williams as "a cruel man who took the lives of two beautiful children".

                He said: "He sought to control his wife and when she would not submit, he took away those she loved most." Chadwick said he continued throughout the trial making false allegations about Morongoe and refusing to accept responsibility for his actions.

                He added: "He will now have a long time to reflect on what he has done and hopefully feel some of the hurt he has done to others."

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                UPDATE – Dr. Phil Show to Air on April 8th

                In domestic law on March 30, 2010 at 2:42 pm

                 

                CJE Web Header 600

                DR. PHIL UPDATE

                We received notice on Friday that the Dr. Phil Show on the Family Court Crisis is scheduled to air on Thursday, April 8th. Please note that this date is subject to change, so please stay tuned to your email for any last minute changes.

                Click here to find the local station and time that the Dr. Phil Show will air in your community.

                As many of you have heard, the taping of this show represents an amazing turn of events in the media’s coverage of this crisis. It was an emotionally powerful morning that none of us who witnessed it will ever forget!

                One of our Protective Moms who flew to LA for the taping has approached CJE with an amazing offer!

                Amanda Hodge from Alabama has agreed to use her marketing background to help us generate additional press around the family court crisis! Amanda has offered to send a press release to local news affiliates on the networks that air the Dr. Phil Show, offering local interviews with Protective Moms who have survived the Family Court Crisis. This is a great strategy that will enable us to piggyback local stories off of the national exposure we’ll be getting from the Dr. Phil Show!

                If you are a Protective Mom and are willing to share your story with local media, please email Amanda Hodge at thomaap@auburn.edu, BEFORE FRIDAY, and let her know the following information:

                1) Your Name and the City/State you live in.

                2) The call letters (i.e. WKLW), station affiliation (NBC, CBS etc.) and contact info for the local news director on the station that airs the Dr. Phil Show  (Don’t worry if you can’t find the news director’s info, we can help with that).

                3) Contact information (Phone & Email).

                4) Please List All that you are Willing to Do:

                – Willing to use your name in the press release?

                – To be interviewed on camera by the press?

                – How about an anonymous interview (Jane Doe)?

                – Willing to name the courthouse that your case is in?

                **Amanda needs to hear from everybody willing to participate by THIS FRIDAY (April 2nd) to adapt a release for your local area. Please be aware that there is no guarantee that the local press will interview you.

                Questions about this action? Please call Amanda at 334-750-2280 (EDT). CJE will be supporting her but not fielding calls about this action.

                Thanks so much to the 100+ Protective Moms who attended last week’s taping of the show. Your commitment to reforming this broken system has allowed us to achieve the unthinkable (fingers crossed)!

                Check the CJE website for more information – we’ll keep you updated as we firm up the details.

                Together, we can rebuild public trust in our courts, reinforcing the judiciary as a well-managed model of integrity, justice and equality.

                QUICK LINKS

                CJE Website

                Family Court Crisis Documentary

                Family Court Crisis Photo Exhibit

                CJE Donate

                 

                 

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                Parental Alienation Syndrome-In the Best Interest of the Pedophile

                In domestic law on March 30, 2010 at 1:44 am

                http://www.cincinnatipas.com/richardgardner-pas.html
                Unless There Are Other Interests

                Dr. Richard Gardner

                Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

                Debunked

                Dr. Richard Gardner, M.D.
                Born On April 28, 1931
                Committed Suicide May 25, 2003

                "CAUSE OF DEATH: Incised wounds of chest and neck."

                Allow us to disabuse the pro-abusers. Dr. Richard Gardner’s son told the New York Times that his father committed suicide. Contrary to assertions made by the father’s rights movement, Richard Gardner most certainly did not die "peacefully in his sleep". It was far uglier than that.

                Read now about this twistedly pathetic man, his ridiculous PAS theory, and the untold damage that he has done.

                In Gardner’s Own Words

                Dr. Richard Gardner:
                "Sex Abuse Hysteria:
                Salem Witch Trials Revisited”

                ”What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles … (going) far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.”

                The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
                In his 1992 book, ”True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse,” Gardner writes that pedophilia — adults having sexual relations with children — ”is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people.”

                Richard Gardner says,
                ”all of us have some pedophilia within us.”

                Insight Magazine, April 1999
                "Has Psychiatry Gone Psycho?"

                By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

                According to the developer of the theory, Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychiatry, PAS is "a disorder of children, arising almost exclusively in child-custody disputes, in which one parent (usually the mother) programs the child to hate the other parent (usually the father)."

                . . . . If a child demonstrates negative feelings toward the father, Gardner’s PAS puts the blame on the mother and explains that the confusion is best remedied by increasing the child’s time with the father.

                When a child has been sexually abused and feels guilt about it, Gardner suggests, the child may be helped to appreciate that "sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts.

                The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal."

                If sexual urges continue after the abuse ends, Gardner suggests such children be encouraged to masturbate.

                Gardner suggests that the molesting-father’s behavior should be understood. The father "has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people" and "he [the father] has had a certain amount of bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia."

                Gardner, Richard A.,

                Child Custody Litigation (1986) p.93

                "At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim," though the child may initiate sexual encounters by ‘seducing’ the adult."

                Gardner, Richard A.,

                True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992)

                "It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles."
                Ibid. pp.46-47

                Many child advocates are "charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents."
                Ibid. p.526

                "It is _extremely_ important for therapists to appreciate that the child who has been genuinely abused may _not_ need psychotherapeutic intervention."
                Ibid. p.535

                "If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and ‘sober her up’… Her hysterics… will contribute to the child’s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father.

                One has to do everything possible to help her put the ‘crime’ in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, such behavior was ubiquitous, and this is still the case."
                Ibid. p.584-585

                "Of relevance here is the belief by many of these therapists that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child — no matter how short, no matter how tender, loving, and non-painful — automatically and predictably _must_ be psychologically traumatic to the child… The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters."
                Ibid. pp.670-71

                "I believe it is reasonable to say that at this time there are millions of people in the United States who are either directly accusing or supporting false sex-abuse accusations and/or are reacting in an extremely exaggerated fashion to situations in which _bona fide_ sex abuse has occurred."
                Ibid. p.688

                Richard Gardner in

                ”Sex Abuse Hysteria”

                Judges ”may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications."

                ¬Ý

                Unscientific Garbage¬Ý

                University of Washington Professor
                John Conte has described Gardner’s "Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale" as

                "probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I’ve seen in the field in all my time. To base social policy on something as flimsy as this is exceedingly dangerous."

                According to "Violence In The Family," a 1996 report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence And the Family:

                The task force found that court decisions awarding an allegedly abusive father custody of his children "… may improperly rely on inaccurate and unsupported theories such as The Parental Alienation Syndrome."

                Margaret Hagen, a Boston University professor of psychology and author of Whores of the Court, says

                "parental alienation is just another bogus psychological theory infecting the nation’s legal system."

                Carol S. Bruch, Professor of Law and Chair,
                Doctoral Programme in Human Developement,
                University of California, Davis
                Parental Alienation Syndrome:
                Junk Science in Child Custody Determinations

                "Possibly as a consequence of these errors and his ‘tail-of-the-elephant’ view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.

                Taken together, these assertions have the practical effect of impugning all abuse allegations, allegations that Gardner asserts are usually false in the divorce context.

                Here, too, Gardner cites no evidence in support of his personal view, and the relevant literature reports the contrary, that such allegations are usually well-founded."

                According to John E. B. Myers in his article,
                "What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome
                And Why Is It So Often Used Against Mothers?"

                "Dr. Gardner’s Parental Alienation Syndrome has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to empirical study, research, or testing. Nor to my knowledge has the syndrome been published in peer reviewed medical or scientific journals."

                The American Prosecutors Research Institute in Virginia

                "that Gardner’s research, including PAS, has not been peer-reviewed or officially recognized by the AMA and the APA. Gardner has been able to get around the peer review process by publishing his own works. Creative Therapeutics, which published "Parental Alienation Syndrome", is Gardner’s own publishing company."

                ¬Ý

                Moneymaker

                "When a fellow says it hain’t the money but the principle o’ the thing, it’s th’ money."
                Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900

                from New Times LA Edition
                Thursday March 4, 1999
                The Scarlet Letter

                Since coming up with his theory, Gardner has begun self-publishing his work in a series of books, training family court evaluators and judges around the country, and testifying as an expert witness in custody cases for $500 an hour, almost exclusively for fathers.

                The color of Parental Alienation Syndrome is green.

                PAS is a huge moneymaker for the unethical psychologists and evaluators who diagnose it. Word travels fast among lawyers. If you are the local PASguy, every jackass attorney will know it. You will be invited into every abuse case within 100 miles. Do not wreck your reputation – never disappoint – keep those PAS reports coming and the money will follow.

                cha-ching

                Remember – all that a psychologist need do, is make recommendations that ensure his continued involvement.

                A $5,000 case can easily become a $10,000 case – or more!

                Diagnose a case of PAS just once a month and presto! – that’s annually an extra $60,000 – or more!

                The Oscar for the best moneymaker theory in child custody evaluations goes to …

                Parental Alienation
                Syndrome

                Attack The Mother

                ¬Ý

                According to John E. B. Myers in his article,
                "What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome And Why Is It So Often Used Against Mothers?"

                "If you are a woman and you allege child sexual abuse, expect to be attacked with Richard Gardner’s Parental Alienation Syndrome. Gardner’s writing is popular among attorney’s who represent men accused of abuse, and among some mental health professionals."

                Trish Wilson
                How "Parental Alienation Syndrome" is Used Against Mothers And Children Who Allege Child Sexual Abuse

                PAS is very popular amongst members of the father’s rights movement as well as men who have been charged with both child abuse and domestic violence.

                Fathers’ rights groups equate "lack of substantiation" with "lying."

                If she alleged abuse, she could be slapped with "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and lose custody of her children — which ultimately was the final outcome. If she ignored the abuse, she was told by a crisis intervention counselor that she could be prosecuted for failure to protect.
                Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

                Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences, has another view.

                "Anyone who thinks and says that incest can be avoided if the mother has better sex with the father may clinically be defined as a psychopath and needs help." She adds that "buying a vibrator is not going to make a happy home. Obviously he has his own demons to deal with."

                Robin Yeamans, California attorney

                "Once a mother is called an alienator, police are informed, social workers are informed, and everything she says from then on counts for nothing."Yeamans, who knows dozens of women who have lost their children in alienation cases, adds, "This is the new scarlet letter."

                PAS Made Him Do It

                ¬Ýfrom New Times LA Edition
                Thursday March 4, 1999
                The Scarlet Letter
                In a 1988 custody case in Maryland, Gardner testified that physicist Marc Friedlander should receive temporary custody of his two sons because his wife, Zitta, also a physicist, was aparental alienator who had interfered with her husband’s visitation rights. While the custody battle was unfolding, Friedlander shot his wife 13 times as she walked to her car after work. During Friedlander’s murder trial, Gardner testified that Zitta Friedlander’s alienating behavior had made her husband psychotic. The jury didn’t buy Gardner’s temporary insanity argument, though, and Friedlander was found guilty of first-degree murder.

                Dr. Richard Gardner in New Jersey

                Dr. Richard Gardner, seen here in February 1999 at age 67, authored the money making PAS theory that made him a very rich man. Gardner committed suicide on May 25, 2003, plunging a seven inch butcher knife into his neck and heart. Gardner testified mostly for men, charging $500 per hour, routinely recommending custody to abusers, deprogramming children and threat therapy for mothers. Gardner was against "the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles".

                "Parental Alienation Syndrome
                and Parental Alienation:

                Getting it Wrong
                in Child Custody Cases"

                by Carol S. Bruch
                Professor of Law and Chair,
                Doctoral Programme in Human Developement,
                University of California, Davis

                ¬Ý

                "Although Dr. Gardner sometimes states that his analysis does not apply to cases of actual abuse, the focus of his attention is directed at discerning whether the beloved parent and child are lying, not whether the target parent is untruthful or has behaved in a way that might explain the child’s aversion."
                Bruch (p. 528-529)

                "Two examples are his efforts to distinguish true from false allegations and his blanket advice to judges that they should refrain from taking abuse allegations seriously, even when supported by a therapist who has seen the child."
                Bruch (p. 529, footnote 6)

                "First, Gardner confounds a child’s developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis."
                Bruch (page 530)

                "Worse yet, if therapists agree that danger exists, Gardner asserts that they are almost always man-hating women who have entered into a folie-ˆÝ-trois with the complaining child and concerned parent."
                Bruch (p. 532)

                "In sum, children’s reluctance or refusal to visit noncustodial parents can probably be better explained without resorting to Gardner’s theory. Studies that followed families over several years, for example, report that visits may cease or be resisted when a variety of reasons cause custodial parents and children to be angry or uncomfortable with the other parent."
                Bruch (p. 534)

                "First, Gardner is broadly (but mistakenly) believed to be a full professor at a prestigious university."
                Bruch (p. 534-535)

                "Because this aura of expertise accompanies his work, few suspect that it is mostly self-published."
                Bruch (page 535)

                ". . . receives referrals from the websites of fathers’ organizations, and provides packaged continuing education courses for professionals."
                Bruch (p. 535-536)

                "Finally, he often inaccurately represents or suggests that PAS is consistent with or endorsed by the accepted work of others."
                Bruch (p. 536)

                "…whenever child sexual abuse allegations or disrupted visitation patterns arise in the United States, one must now be prepared to confront a claim asserting that PAS is at work, not abuse or other difficulties."
                Bruch (page 537)

                "Following considerable scientific criticism, Gardner withdrew the test he had constructed to determine whether sexual abuse had taken place."
                Bruch (p. 539)

                Richard Gardner’s Favorite

                JUDGES

                Richard Gardner penned a response to Carol S. Bruch’s study of him and his ridiculous, debunked PAS theory. Gardner claimed that there are 66 PAS judges in the United States. This is hard to verify because Gardner does not name the moron 66.

                Here are the final 2 paragraphs of
                Gardner’s response to Bruch from:

                Family Law Quarterly 35(3):527-552, 2001

                Comments on Carol S. Bruch’s Article
                "Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation:
                Getting it Wrong in Child Custody Cases"

                Richard A. Gardner, M.D.:

                ¬Ý"There are many other criticisms I have of the Bruch article, which is not the disinterested, comprehensive survey of the material available onPAS that it represents itself to be. My final conclusion is that it is not I who am biased and misrepresenting the material; it is clearly Bruck herself.

                Last, I believe that all of Bruck’s attempts to discredit and deny PAS will prove futile, her obvious great labors toward that goal notwithstanding.PAS exists, and corroboration of that is the 66 judges who have cited it, and the over 150 authors who have written about it."

                Geographic PAS Warning

                If you are a protective parent or abused child living in any of the following American states, Canadian provinces or five other countries, you may have to contend with a twisted legal system infected with the debunked PAS theory. Over the past two decades, Parental Alienation Syndrome has had legal success to varying degrees in the following regions:

                Known PAS States in the USA – 23

                ¬ÝAlabama
                ¬ÝFlorida
                ¬ÝNevada
                ¬ÝTexas

                ¬ÝAlaska
                ¬ÝIllinois
                ¬ÝNew Hampshire
                ¬ÝVirginia

                ¬ÝArkansas
                ¬ÝIndiana
                ¬ÝNew Jersey
                ¬ÝWashington

                ¬ÝCalifornia
                ¬ÝIowa
                ¬ÝNew York
                ¬ÝWisconsin

                ¬ÝColorado
                ¬ÝLouisiana
                ¬ÝOhio
                ¬ÝWyoming

                ¬ÝConnecticut
                ¬ÝMichigan
                ¬ÝPennsylvania
                ¬Ý

                Known PAS Provinces
                in Canada – 7

                Known PAS Countries Elsewhere – 5

                ¬Ý
                ¬Ý

                ¬ÝAlberta
                ¬ÝAustralia

                ¬ÝBritish Columbia
                ¬ÝGermany

                ¬ÝNew Brunswick
                ¬ÝGreat Britain

                ¬ÝNew Foundland
                ¬ÝIsrael

                ¬ÝNova Scotia
                ¬ÝSwitzerland

                ¬ÝOntario
                ¬Ý

                ¬ÝQuebec
                ¬Ý

                Lawyers everywhere know of the debunked PAS theory and many attempt to use it in defense of accused clients. Some lawyers shamelessly operate under a "whatever it takes" motto. And of course all it takes is one whacked judge for your region to make the list.

                If you are one of the judges who has accepted PAS into your courtroom, then you have allowed a theory concocted by a man so mentally unbalanced that he would later commit suicide by thrusting a butcher’s knife into his heart and who once also wrote,

                ”What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles … (going) far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.”

                A PAS Game

                Sweet Letters & Sour Motives

                Imagine that someone steals your car?

                And then the thief writes you a very nice letter offering to give you a lift in your stolen car?

                The thief just wants to be friends. That would be incredible, right?

                When you decline and say you just want your goddamn car back, the thief criticizes you for not being very nice and calls you rude.

                Indeed, the thief shows others copies of his letters to prove how nice he has been to you. And perhaps your impolite responses.

                This is like a PAS game.

                Abusers play this game very well.

                Instead of a car, the Abuser steals a child’s innocence and scars him for life. And then expects the accusing parent to be a nice, civil and cooperative co-parent.

                Any accusing parent stung by PAS theory can tell you all about "the abuser’s letters".

                So many Abusers do this, that it is hard to imagine that they have not been advised to do so. The purpose of the letters are to make the accusing parent appear uncooperative – and in Dr. Richard Gardner’s PAS world, the uncooperative parent is to be punished.

                The Abuser is not really writing to the accusing parent, but rather, for the benefit of a PAS Judge or evaluator.

                The Abuser has almost no expectation that the accusing parent will receive the letters well. The Abuser knows that the accusing parent regards him as sick and wrong.

                The Abuser hopes to create a mistake in the accusing parent’s response, or non-response, or to simply show the letters one day to a PAS Judge or evaluator. The Abuser hopes with the letters to box in the accusing parent.

                If the accusing parent accidentally extends to the Abuser a courtesy that is too generous, then it undermines the allegations of abuse. If the accusing parent isn’t cooperative at all, then according to Gardner, that parent cannot be a reliable co-parent and custody therefore should go to the Abuser.

                It’s so very easy to prove that the accusing parent, angry about the abuse of their child, isn’t particularly fond of the parent they believe to have committed that abuse. While right thinking people (and right thinking judges) can easily understand that and believe it to be only natural, PAS Judges and evaluators welcome the abuser’s letters. In their PAS eyes, it is proof of recalcitrance.

                Welcome to the PAS letters game.Can I give you a lift?

                Richard Overdoses

                While The Evil Dr. Gardner …

                Uses A Butcher’s Knife

                CincinnatiPAS.com was the first website to report the suicide of the pro-pedophillic Dr. Richard Gardner, reporting the event seven days before the NY Times.

                The father’s rights movement, true to their disinformation habit, comicly ignore the facts regarding their hero’s gory death for the simple reason that it makes Richard Gardner appear mentally unbalanced, which of course he was.

                Gardner’s misguided supporters are also loathe to explain his many pro-pedophillic opinions (see above), glossing over them. The parental alienationists pretend Gardner simply died in his sleep just as they pretend he was not pro-pedophillic.

                Like Gardner’s debunked PAS theory, these people are out to lunch. Their sappy tributes to a fallen pro-pedophillic comrade would be funny were it not that some folks actually take these people seriously.

                ¬Ý

                County Of Bergen
                Department of Public Safety
                Medical Examiner

                Autopsy Report

                May 27, 2003
                02030860.aut
                GARDNER, Richard A.
                "This is to certify that I, Laura S. Carbone, M.D., Bergen County Medical Examiner, have conducted a postmortem examination and autopsy on the unembalmed and refrigerated body of Richard A. Gardner at the Bergen County Medical Examiner’s Office on May 27, 2003, between 1030 and 1235 hours with the assistance of Ms. Coleen McVeigh."
                IDENTIFICATION:
                The decedent is identified visually at the scene by his girlfriend, Natalie Weiss.
                CLOTHING/PERSONAL EFFECTS:
                The decedent is received clad in a white with black print ("carpe diem") sweatshirt, white undershirt, navy blue trousers and white boxer shorts. The garments are all intact showing no discrete perforations or tears. The sweatshirt and undershirt show patchy blood stains which are most concentrated on the right shoulder and the back areas of the garments. A white handkerchief is recovered from the right front pocket of the trousers; a similar handkerchief and 2 1/2 light orange oval tablets are within the left front pocket. A yellow, metal, nugget-type ring is worn on the right middle finger.
                All of the above-described items with the exception of the tablets recovered from a pant pocket (retained) are released to the funeral home (Wien and Wien).
                OTHER ITEMS:
                Various items are recovered from the scene and are received within labeled paper envelopes as follows:
                Several bottles of prescription medications are recovered, some of which are empty. For specific medications, dosages, quantities, etc. please see the report prepared by the Medical Examiner Investigator.
                A bloodied steak knife is recovered from the scene. The knife has a wooden handle measuring 3 3/4 x 1/2 x 1/4 inches with a yellow metal serrated blade measuring 5 inches in length and up to 5/8 inch wide and 1/16 inch in maximum thickness; dried blood is visible smeared on the blade surface and smudged on the handle. The knife is photographed.
                All of the above-described items are retained by the Bergen County Medical Examiner’s Office.
                MARKS OF TREATMENT:
                There is no evidence of terminal medical attention.
                RADIOLOGY:
                No postmortem x-ray studies are performed.
                INJURIES, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL:
                There are incised wounds (sharp-force injuries) to the chest and neck. The injuries are listed below for descriptive purposes only. No sequence is implied.
                I. CHEST:
                There are at least four stab wounds clustered within a 6 x 3 inch area on the anterior left chest. The wounds will be described from inferior to superior designated A-D as follows:
                A:
                There is a nearly horizontally-oriented elliptical stab wound centered … (redacted)
                B and C:
                Wound B is a nearly horizontally-oriented elliptical stab wound … (redacted)
                Wound C is an irregularly shaped stab wound … (redacted)
                D:
                The body is received with a knife plunged into wound D. The knife is angled upward and inward with the sharp and dull edges of the blade within the lateral and medial edges of the wound, respectively. … (redacted)
                Once the knife is removed, wound D consists of an elliptical-shaped stab wound … (redacted) The medial edge is blunt and the lateral edge is sharp. After penetration through the full thickness of the skin and soft tissue of the left anterior chest wall, the knife extended through the intercostal muscle between the left second and third ribs creating a 2" linear incision. The knife then perforated the superior aspect of the pericardial sac … (redacted) The knife then penetrated the heart; … (redacted) The knife then terminated in the lumen of the aorta … (redacted)
                The direction of the wound’s track is upward and inward, from left to right. The maximum depth of penetration is approximately 5".
                II. NECK:
                There are three parallel obliquely-oriented incised wounds on the right lateral aspect of the neck situated approximately 1/2" apart and each at angles along the same line as the angle of the jaw. … (redacted)
                KNIFE:
                The knife which is recovered from the subject’s chest is a butcher knife having a black and gray metal handle and a gray metal blade measuring 7 3/4" length, 1 3/4" maximum width and up to 1/8" maximum thickness. The sharp edge of the blade shows a pattern of tiny serrations. Much of the blade is bloodied.
                The knife is photographed and retained by the Bergen County Medical Examiner’s Office.
                … (redacted)
                ¬Ý
                FINDINGS/FINAL DIAGNOSIS:

                I. Incised wounds of chest and neck.

                A. Stab wounds (4) of left chest with:
                (a) Incisions of heart, aorta and pericardial sac.
                (b) Hemothoraz (1200ml), left.
                (c) Soft tissue hemorrhages.
                B. Incised wounds (3) of right neck with:
                (a) Transection of right jugular vein.
                (b) Incision of right thyroid cartilage lamina.
                (c) Soft tissue hemorrhages.
                … (redacted)
                ¬Ý
                CAUSE OF DEATH:
                Incised wounds of chest and neck.
                MANNER OF DEATH:
                Suicide.
                ¬Ý
                Laura S. Carbone, M.D.
                Assistant Medical Examiner
                Date Dictated: 05-27-03
                Date Transcribed: 06-23-03
                Date Finalized: 07-02-03
                End of Excerpt of Medical Examiner’s Autopsy

                What a scene that must have been?


                Three stabs to the neck.
                – That’s gotta hurt!


                Four stabs to the heart & chest.
                – Ouch!

                Can you imagine Richard Gardner stabbing himself in such a horrific way? Blood all over the place? It would be like Norman Bates slashing himself. You can hear the Psycho music too.

                Internally conflicted and mentally unstable to the last, this web site wonders whether Richard took the overdose – while the evil Dr. Gardner preferred a butcher’s knife?

                Richard had the right idea, a painless forever snooze.

                But what drove the evil Dr. Gardner to choose for himself such a gory, bloody and violent death?

                Isn’t that kind of … crazy?

                ¬Ý

                New York Times

                June 9, 2003, Monday

                METROPOLITAN DESK

                Richard Gardner, 72, Dies;
                Cast Doubt on Abuse Claims

                By STUART LAVIETES
                "Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who developed a theory about parental alienation syndrome, which he said could lead children in high-conflict custody cases to falsely accuse a parent of abuse, died on May 25 at his home in Tenafly, N.J. He was 72.
                The cause was suicide, said Dr. Gardner’s son, Andrew, who said his father had been distraught over the advancing symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a painful neurological syndrome.
                Dr. Gardner, who testified in more than 400 child custody cases, maintained that children who suffered from parental alienation syndrome had been indoctrinated by a vindictive parent and obsessively denigrated the other parent without cause.
                In severe cases, he recommended that courts remove children from the homes of the alienating parents and place them in the custody of the parents accused of abuse.
                His theory has provoked vehement opposition from some mental health professionals, child abuse experts and lawyers. Critics argue that it lacks a scientific basis, noting that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have not recognized it as a syndrome.
                They also say that the theory is biased against women, as allegations of abuse are usually directed at fathers, and that it is used as a weapon by lawyers seeking to undermine a mother’s credibility in court." …
                … "His marriage to Lee Gardner ended in divorce. In addition to his son, of Cherry Hill, N.J., he is survived by two daughters, Nancy Gardner Rubin of Potomac, Md., and Julie Gardner Mandelcorn, of Newton, Mass.; his mother, Amelia Gardner of Manhattan; eight grandchildren; and his partner, Natalie Weiss.
                Correction: June 14, 2003, Saturday An obituary on Monday about Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, misstated his position at Columbia University. He was a clinical professor of psychiatry in the division of child and adolescent psychiatry — an unpaid volunteer — not a professor of child psychiatry."
                End of Obituary Excerpt

                ¬Ý

                ¬Ý¬Ý

                A comment about Dr. Richard Gardner’s suicide released by the last man to cross examine him, attorney Richard Ducote:

                ¬Ý¬ÝJune 1, 2003

                "Parental Alienation Syndrome is a bogus, pro-pedophillic fraud concocted by Richard Gardner. I was the last attorney to cross examine Gardner. In Paterson, NJ, he admitted that he has not spoken to the Dean of Columbia’s medical school for over 15 years, and has not had hospital admitting privileges for over 25 years.

                He has not been court appointed to do anything for decades.

                The only two appellate courts in the country who have considered the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test, i.e., whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, said it does not. As Dr. Paul Fink, former president of the American Psychiatric Association has stated, Dr. Gardner and PAS should be only a "pathetic footnote" in psychiatric history. Gardner and his bogus theory have done untold damage to sexually and physically abused children and their protective parents. PAS has been rejected by every reputable organization considering it.

                In a Florida case in which I was recently involved, when the judge insisted on a Frye hearing, Gardner simply did not show up. Perhaps because he finally realized that the entire nation was on to his scam, he committed suicide on May 25. Let’s pray that his ridiculous, dangerous PAS foolishness died with him."

                Richard Ducote
                attorney at law
                New Orleans, LA

                Internally conflicted and mentally unstable to the last, this website wonders whether Richard took the overdose –

                while the evil Dr. Gardner preferred a butcher’s knife?

                Did Richard Gardner Also Cause 16 year old Nathan Grieco’s Suicide?

                The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in performing their civic duty to inform and enlighten, ran a two part investigative story on a tragic custody war in their city in which Dr. Richard Gardner became personally involved as an expert witness.

                Dr. Gardner interviewed the allegedly abusive father but did not interview the mother nor the three boys at the center of the custody dispute. Nevertheless, Gardner diagnosed "a classical case of PAS" based upon his conversations with his paying client. He called the mother and her three sons "sadistic" and recommended that they be "coerced" (he actually used that word) into making the boys visit their father.

                Gardner recommended to the Pittsburgh judge something he called "Threat Therapy", in which the mother should be jailed if the boys did not visit their physically and mentally abusive father. In regard to accusing mothers, Gardner believed that therapists do well to "sober" them up. Otherwise, the children might think that a "heinous crime" has been committed.

                Despite its’ questionable constitutionality, the Pittsburgh judge went along with Gardner’s forced visit "threat therapy" recommendation and what’s more, the mother was ordered to deliver the boys in a positive frame of mind or be held for sanctions. The oldest boy, 16 year old Nathan Grieco soon after suffered a nervous breakdown, was hospitalized and eventually committed suicide.

                Nathan’s mother went public 2 weeks after his death, blaming Dr. Richard Gardner and Pittsburgh Judge John J. Driscoll. Her story created a national outcry.

                Click below to read this Pittsburgh family’s heart wrenching story and see why it is that so many right thinking mental health and legal professionals regard Dr. Richard Gardner as having been nothing more than a dangerous con man.

                Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Casualties of a Custody War – What’s best for the child? (Part One)

                Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Casualties of a Custody War – The courtroom as battleground (Part two)

                Click Here For

                The Bergen County- New Jersey Medical Examiner:
                Complete Dr. Richard Gardner Autopsy Report

                "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
                Thomas Jefferson, 1820

                (Topeka, KS) Dr. Milfred “Bud” Dale Expert Witness_Testimony_After_Case_Review

                In domestic law on March 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm

                filehttp://buddale.com/Expert_Witness_Testimony_After_Case_Review_Statement_of_Understanding.doc.

                MilfredBudDale, Ph.D., J.D.

                Licensed Psychologist

                2201 SW 29th Street

                Topeka, KS  66611

                (785)267-0025/Fax (785)266-6546

                drbuddale@aol.com www.buddale.com

                ______________________________________________________________________________________

                Milfred Dale, Ph.D., J.D.

                Statement of Understanding for Expert Witness Testimony

                The purpose of this Agreement is to explain the fee arrangements for MilfredBudDale, Ph.D., J.D., who has been asked to testify as an expert witness by 

                ______________________________ [Name of Attorney], Attorney-at-Law, who is representing 

                ______________________________ [Name of Client] in the following case: 

                ______________________________.

                This Statement of Understanding for Expert Witness Testimony is a separate business agreement from the Statement of Understanding for an Expert Witness Case Review. 

                Dr. Dale has conducted an Expert Witness Case Review in the above captioned matter and is now being asked to testify regarding the results of that review and analysis. 

                By signing this agreement, the Attorney-Client authorizes Dr. Dale to prepare for testimony based upon the his Report of Expert Witness Case Review that was submitted to the Attorney-Client.  Dr. Dale’s report will be used as the basis for his courtroom testimony.  Dr. Dale’s report will have outlined his review methodology, including the materials made available for the analysis and review. 

                Dr. Dale agrees to testify based upon his Report of Expert Witness Case Review in the above captioned matter.  His testimony will focus on the analysis and review of the evaluation report and any materials submitted during the Expert Witness Case Review.  Dr. Dale’s testimony will focus on methods and procedures of the evaluation, any test data from psychological tests (if available), and the conclusions and inferences outlined in the report.  Dr. Dale’s testimony will provide opinions regarding conformity with current professional practice guidelines and standards, the use of forensic methods and procedures appropriate to the nature and scope of the evaluation task, and both the strengths and deficiencies of the evaluator’s work.

                There is no explicit or implicit understanding that Dr. Dale’s task is confined to identifying deficiencies.  Part of his review and report may opine that the certain of the conclusions and opinions of the evaluator are justified by the data in the evaluation and the methodology used to collect it.  There is an understanding that Dr. Dale is not conducting a comprehensive child custody evaluation and that he will not offer an opinion of comparative parenting competencies of the parents based solely on a review of a report and submitted materials.  He will also not offer any specific opinions or recommendations regarding how the court should address any custody, residence, or parenting time plan disputes in the custody dispute based solely on a review of another evaluator’s report and submitted materials. 

                For expert witness testimony, an advance Retainer is required, unless other arrangements have been made. This is addition to any fees connect to the Expert Witness Care Review or the Report of Expert Witness Case Review.  The fees for Dr. Dale’s expert testimony services will be billed at a rate of $200 per hour.  When in-court testimony is away from Topeka and/or anticipated to take more than four hours away from Dr. Dale’s office in Topeka, a fee of $1600 for the day will be billed.  The amount of this Testimony Retainer will be based upon an estimate of the amount likely to cover the fees associated with a combination of Preparation Time and Attendance Time.  If additional fees are charged, payment must be made within 30 days of the date of billing.

                While no distinction in fees will be made for Preparation for Trial time and Attendance Time in the fee structure, these categories do help the Attorney-Client understand the involved fees in order to estimate the Testimony Retainer and any additional fees.  

                Preparation Time will be billed regardless of whether Dr. Dale testifies.  Preparation Time includes time expended while corresponding with the court, consulting with attorneys, preparing for trial, traveling to and from meetings with attorneys, traveling time to and from court, and waiting (including any time that has been expended on this case prior to signing this agreement. 

                Attendance Time includes time spent for going to and from court, waiting to testify, and providing testimony.  Dr. Dale will record all interactions and provide a detailed account upon billing the Attorney-Client.  Any unused portions of paid fees will be refunded within thirty days of the completion of Dr. Dale’s work in the case.

                If the trial is continued, settled out of court, or otherwise delayed, any paid fees will be refunded, less fees for Preparation Time, when notice is received at least five working days prior to trial.  Fifty percent of the “Retainer less fees for Preparation Time” will be refunded when notice is received at least five working days prior to trial.  Twenty percent of the “Retainer less fees for Preparation Time” will be refunded if notice is received less than two working days prior to trial. 

                All payments to Dr. Dale are for the provision of expert services as a psychologist.  These fees are NOT contingent upon providing particular opinions or upon a particular outcome of the case.  Any and all reasonable costs associated with any collection efforts shall be added to the Attorney-Client’s bill. 

                Date:  ______________________________

                Name of Attorney/Client:___________________  Signature:  _____________________________

                Milfred Dale, Ph.D., J.D., Licensed Psychologist Signature:  ______________________________

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                KansasWatchDog: Fox 4 KC: Report Slams Kansas Foster Care System

                In domestic law on March 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm

                www.KansasWatchDog.org

                Fox 4 KC: Report Slams Kansas Foster Care System

                By Earl Glynn On March 29, 2010

                Print This Article Print This Article

                Fox 4 mentions the report released by the Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues about the major problems and change needed in the foster care system in Kansas. 

                Fox 4’s Tess Koppelman interviews a grandmother in Olathe, Kathy Winters, who has been blocked from adopting her grandchildren:

                 


                Related:
                Contact: Earl F Glynn, earl@kansaswatchdog.org, KansasWatchdog.org

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                Another Battered Mother being Forced to Shut Down her site Exposing Evidence of Court Corruption

                In domestic law on March 29, 2010 at 1:15 pm

                I am coping the site now. But urge others to do the same. The stuff she has on here ‘they’ the payee’s don’t want known. please do not allow her to be www silenced.

                BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE RE-VICTIMIZED THROUGH A FAMILY COURT SYSTEM DRIVEN BY A LONG LIST OF PAYEES

                 

                http://www.valetteclark.com/Home

                Brutal and ruthless; the attack on

                BATTERED families in the

                United States family court system

                A TRUE STORY

                “You can fool some of the people all the time,

                and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

                I am no longer one of those people who can be fooled all of the time. By telling this story and proving the events in our family case and the long term affects to me and my family, I hope to prevent this from happening to other victim families. I will attempt to give some insight into this issue with a thorough and complete presentation of the facts and the affects on my family. My case is not uncommon but I have documented all of it and this is uncommon. I believe this unfortunate situation happens because family courts have re-categorized "violence" as "domestic violence" and as a result, violence in the home is addressed in family divisions through laws that do not apply to victims of crime.

                This has produced the current dilemma facing victim families; battered women and children being re victimized through a family court system driven by a long list of "payees".

                I have come to learn about many different horrible ways that families and both parents have been affected by manipulation, for profit, by family lawyers. Men are easier to manipulate as they are told they will lose "all of the money" or they are often given support from family court lawyers that feeds a narcissistic desire to become the victim in a situation where the facts tell a story of abuse to their wife and children. Some men are only interested in keeping all of the money and really only use the custody case as a vehicle to receive a better financial outcome as they are told by their lawyers that this is necessary.

                Other men, who have been abusive to their families, want to have a relationship with their children believing their past behavior is attributable to a bad marriage taking no personal responsibility for the abuse. By the time the abuser has paid "all of the money" instead, to his lawyer, and still has no relationship with his children, he misplaces his anger on his ex wife or children. This is the cornerstone of all family cases involving abuse for family lawyers. Instead of accepting responsibility, apologizing and working to improve or develop a relationship with the child, the father is told to call the child a "liar" and to financially support the lawyer and "his children" instead of his own child. This only makes a poor relationship worse. This is the way a family lawyer can make a good living by creating acrimony and giving a father the sense of "control" that is often part of the problem with men who abuse their families. This flaw is used as a "tool" to make more money. Nevertheless, the affects are everlasting and permanent.

                We all arrive in the family court system with the belief that we have an equal opportunity to receive a just and appropriate outcome in each case. As you will find out, through the pages to follow, this presumption is not only false, but the court is used to batter victims of domestic violence over and over. This process has become so brazen that it now operates openly including TV and radio ads to men involved in "high conflict" (abusive) divorce or "high conflcit custody cases" guaranteeing positive outcomes especially in "high net worth cases".

                With complete immunity from legal action or consequence, family court systems have run amuck. As a result, cases are for sale and victims cannot compete in this marketplace as the judges who are on board and often profit from these cases, refuse victim families access to marital funds to compete or litigate these cases.

                For example, I received an amount of $8000.00 dollars of a $45,000 dollar bonus to pay the lawyer in December of 2001 when I filed for divorce. The next "advance on the marital estate" would be given in February of 2005. We asked for $15,000 to pay the forensic accountant, the lawyer and expenses. The judge refused giving us $7500.00 and making the order to stipulate no further advances for me to pay for any legal expenses. Meanwhile, I will provide canceled checks for Kevin Clark to his law firm that I received from the 15 month period (the only discovery that we received) of Sept. 2003-Dec. 22, 2004 in the amounts of $8000.00 every other month. I was forced to pay the child support/alimony to the lawyers and expert for retainers and costs to litigate the case. This is how my now ex husband made good on his threat that I would never receive a penny of alimony for exposing the abuse he inflicted on his family. He would initiate constant litigation or his lawyer would "sell him an new service" and we would be forced to pay child support to answer or respond and we had to respond or we would have been held in contempt etc.

                Abusers, who have a documented history of abuse, with financial means, are told that they "must show some interest in the children" to receive the possibility of a favorable, financial outcome. Then, after the abuser is rewarded financially for "showing interest”, the abuser discontinues visitation with the children. This is what happened in my case. Interest in the children shown in my case resulted in 5 custody trials initiated by father with no request for overnights, week ends or holidays. The request was for two of four children for four hours a week on father’s afternoon off. After all of the financial issues were settled and father was able to escape the divorce keeping all of the marital assets and paying less than 5% of his annual income in child support that would end when the youngest child turns 16, father was never heard from again for visitation.


                Father’s rights groups are now receiving taxpayer monies to fight for custody in these cases instigated by family lawyers to find a new revenue source to enable this fraud on victim families to continue with middle and low net income cases.

                The federal government is interested in these cases as lawmakers, churches and the public have turned their backs on this issue for years leaving battered women and children to be consumed by this brutal process for profit. The Obama administration has acknowledged this issue by holding a summit in June of 2009 to discuss the ways that this attack on battered families may be addressed and corrected. Now that this issue has risen to the federal level as there are so many cases that beg for justice, I believe the justice department is trying to answer the questions asked by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. He asked some very important questions that I have copied below in the address that he made at the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment on June 2, 2009. He just may be asking the wrong people. Protecting family business and keeping the business of domestic violence in the family divisions instead of the criminal divisions is the goal shared by family legal professionals and family divisions that will ensure millions of dollars of income to corrupt family courts across the country. I will share with you a look at our case in the pages that will follow. I hope it will provoke some truthful discussion and action to stop the re-victimization of abuse victims in family courts.

                My hope is that it will be addressed with the removal of domestic violence from the domestic code through laws that will be restructured at a federal level to include violence in the home in the criminal code instead of the domestic code.  Another solution is the creation of federal laws to provide oversight and consequences for the misconduct and fraud that is perpetrated on victim families in family courts.  Our entire system of laws in the United States is based on a system of checks and balances. If the framers of the constitution recognized the need for oversight to prevent corruption, why should the family court system be any different?

                After I had gathered strong and solid evidence of fraud and obstruction of justice in our case, I contacted the local FBI office. Before I could even present my information, I was informed that the FBI does not handle public corruption or fraud. When I started investigating where to go to exact justice in this case, I discovered that the local FBI office is the appropriate entity to address these issues. I can only surmise that the FBI does not want to be involved in these cases as there are too many to count and would require many long hours and possible removal of local judges. Why would the federal government allow this scam on families to continue without intervention, I wondered? Writing a book and giving the public accurate information on this website about this process was the only way that I could see for me to make the public aware of this injustice and to initiate a real change in the state and federal laws. 

                There are several different case scenarios in all of these cases that carry a common thread. The common thread is the reported physical or sexual abuse of a child. From there, the form of the discrimination against the mother will be decided based on economic considerations. The word "payees" refers to legal service providers, psychological service providers, child protective service providers (CYFS), family court judges, expert service providers (custody evaluators, reunification therapists, Guardian Ad Litems) and court ordered support services such as Generations or Foster Care Placement Services.

                All of these payees are dependent on the income provided from cases involving criminal violence to victim families. A family who does not require services based on "domestic violence" will not need the services of many of these providers. These positions and jobs were created to facilitate the large number of families who will enter the family court with a protection of abuse order or claims of domestic violence.

                We all hear and know the stories reported on the news each evening describing horrific crimes against women and children but sadly, only when a police officer is killed in the line of duty answering one of these calls do we see the type of news coverage that these cases deserve. Many of the "domestic" calls that result in a fallen officer which has happened in Allegheny County five times in the last six months, could have been avoided had the state and federal government treated these crimes as a crime. All of the cases that have caused the death of a police officer in the last 6 months are the result of murderers who have been processed for the same "domestic" crimes over and over again. In the most recent case, the killer had taken a gun to his wife's place of employment several years earlier holding her and other employees hostage for several hours which resulted in probation and the return of the same weapon that would later kill an officer and the man's wife before he turned the gun on himself. Do you want to end this problem?

                If the mother is poor, she will be given equal responsibility for the abuse inflicted to the children and spousal abuse will be ignored. Services and providers (payees) will be provided to take away the children from "both" parents. I surmise that this is done because it is more lucrative to the payees, for a set of parents that have no money, to use the government money to pay themselves for the needed services.

                In cases where both parents are of equal means and both working, these cases will go on into eternity draining both parties financially until the case is over and the children will stay in the home with mother depending on how much more she is willing to spend than father. In some of these cases, they take away custody from mother discriminating against her for working and the abuse issue is not even considered in the process. The stressors put on the parties with full time work, repetitious litigation, history of abuse, fear for the children of abuse in father’s home and constant demands made on the parties for therapy and intervention from the payees (providers) is enormous making a huge strain both psychologically and economically on the family. No thought is given to the vantage point of the crime victims in the equation who are suffering psychologically as any other crime victim would as this is completely ignored as non existent even in cases of admitted child and spousal abuse.

                In cases where the father is financially well to do, with a dependent spouse and children, the father will be given a plethora of options, ala carte high end items like, a motion for a new custody trial two weeks before Christmas or an order for a custody evaluator to do a needed evaluation of mother and children etc..

                The victim family is drug around the jungle (family division) by this carnivorous predator by its teeth until the victims are eventually consumed or devoured by this agonizing nightmare that is all legal!

                Removing violence in the homes of all families in the United States and globally is in the public interest and benefits the entire human race. I don’t believe any politician could or would argue this point. This is why it is hard to understand how and why this situation continues on with little to no interference from lawmakers or law enforcement. The common sentiment is "all is fair in love and war" but this is not "love and war", this is "crime and no punishment."


                IN OUR CASE:

                I soon realized that our family case beginning with a Protection from Abuse Order (PFA) in September of 2001 would be an uphill battle. The words "divorce" or "custody" spoken in conjunction with physical or sexual abuse of a child or spouse had an immediate reaction. This reaction was disgust, dismissal or anger directed at me and my children in relation to our case. This happened in the family court in the Allegheny County Family Division from the onset of the case. Shame and guilt for the actions of an abusive parent/spouse should not be ours to carry. It should be the abuser who carries the stigma associated with his or her actions. In our case, it could never be said that I did not try to get my ex husband the right kind of help to stop these horrible behaviors or seek counseling for my children and myself. Still, we were treated like we were the criminals in the family court. My ex husband, who would be in prison for the crimes he perpetrated on my children and me if he had done this to anyone else, was treated like a "wayward child" who needed guidance, counseling and a fresh start.

                After the district attorney filed criminal felony charges against my ex husband and our criminal case became public, my ex husband obtained a gag order through the family division. It barred the victims from speaking on the matter but my ex husband was not included in the order. His criminal lawyer went on the evening news to identify our sons as the victims that my ex husband was accused of raping. The criminal defense lawyer did this by telling the reporter that "the woman" who is the mother of the victims and his client were going through a bitter divorce and "these types of allegations are made in divorces". The reaction was immediate. The public completely bought this explanation as he is a well respected physician in the community. No thought was given to the criminal burden to file these charges especially during a divorce. The family division coerced a criminal plea deal by allowing the defendant to with hold the settlement agreement, the settlement monies and the child support to ensure the plea. The settlement that was payable on March 2, 2006, was paid on December 15, 2006, the same day as the defendant signed the criminal plea deal. (See: Criminal Plea Transcript, Trust account listing pay dates for the lawyers, Clark settlement agreement stating the settlement date of March 2, 2006 for distribution) In spite of this arrangement, the defendant pled gulity to the crimes in the original indictment as verified in writing to the court reunification therapist:

                From: Valette61@aol.com

                Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:44 AM

                To: Dan Cuddy Subject: Clark Case

                Dear Dan,

                The letter below is from Dr. William Fischer. He wants verification directly from you of what the crimes are that Kevin acknowledged. I gave him the paper work from you and the email description that you sent me yesterday but he wants to give Kevin the benefit of the doubt that I am somehow misrepresenting the facts here. I hate to bother you with this but since he is in charge of the fate of visits for Phillip and Kristina and possible contempt issues against me, it would be very helpful to tell him that Kevin admitted to the indictment that you gave me and there are no other crimes mentioned such as "roughing up Michael" which is what he has told Dr. Fischer the EWOC counts are for. I told him they are for all three children and Kevin disputes this also. The main point I need to make with Dr. Fischer is that the original crimes on the indictment are the same crimes he pleaded to. Thanks for any and all help Dan. His email address is fischerwf@att.net -Val Clark

                Dear Ms. Clark,

                Thank you for your latest email. I appreciate the fact that this has been a long, difficult period for you and the children. The issue that is under dispute is not whether Kevin pled nollo contendre to the first degree misdemeanors, but rather, how precisely were those misdemeanors described? Kevin claims that the version that you sent me was not the final one. Hence, I would like to ask Mr. Cuddy if he could send me a copy of the final version. Do you think that would be alright?

                William F. Fischer, Ph.D.

                Subj: RE: Clark Case Date: 1/2/2007 3:03:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

                From: DCuddy@da.allegheny.pa.us

                To: Valette61@aol.com

                Val,

                Happy New Year. I left a message for Dr. Fisher and am awaiting a return call. The Court Reporters’ office has informed me that Cheryl Chorba was the court reporter on 12-15. I will try to solve this from my end with Dr. Fisher, but the transcript may be needed as well. I imagine he has a copy of the things you left with, correct? That, and the transcript are going to be the only pieces of paper detailing the goings on that day. I withdrew the original charges and amended the others orally, and didn’t do so with any formal written motion, etc.. That’s why I say those other things are the only documentation. I’ll do what I can to help.

                Dan


                Filled with anger over being perceived as incompetent for returning the Clark children to unsupervised visitation before criminal charges were filed, the family court targeted the victims for retribution. The family court judge attempted to obstruct justice in the criminal case by forcing a rape victim to continue visiting unsupervised before the criminal preliminary trial and after the charges were carried over for trial and by allowing the settlement to be held back to ensure a plea.

                The family court judge did obstruct justice in the family case punishing the family, severely financially.

                Last, the family court judge held back the requested documents from the state prosecutor in the private complaint that I filed against the custody evaluator, Mark King with the State of Pennsylvania causing the statute of limitations to run out.

                Even after the state had secured a conviction in the criminal case, the family court went on to ignore the conviction continuing to obstruct justice by it’s refusal to enforce health insurance for our adult disabled son or by refusing to enforce the life insurance clause in the fraudulent settlement agreement to secure child support- allowing my ex husband’s girlfriend to remain as the listed beneficiary on a policy for our children’s child support.

                The family division is the court to address "domestic violence" in the home and I had more than sufficient evidence of "domestic violence" when I filed the PFA that initiated our family case however mine and my children’s credibility were immediately called into question and we were treated with overt skepticism. This is a result of the culture of family courts across this country that are in the habit, for profit, of minimizing and re-victimizing victims of domestic violence. This barbaric practice must end by removing the jurisdiction of domestic violence from the family divisions to the criminal divisions. This will send a message that will eventually take root that assault of a family member is a crime. This approach will also eliminate the possibility of using child support or spousal support as a bargaining chip to get away with these crimes. By holding food and shelter over the heads of victims, abusers can continually get away with these crimes with the cooperation of the family courts. There should be no financial component or possible punishment to victims of violence when considering the consequences for a crime.

                These issues should be decided in the criminal division first and then the family division can not use the economic power to influence the outcome of the case…

                Violence in the home to a child or spouse is not a "custody conflict" or a "high conflict" divorce. Violence to anyone, the last time I checked the criminal code, is a crime that should be a factor in determining the safety issue in allowing child victims of violence to spend unsupervised time with the perpetrators of these crimes. This is the basis for my argument. All violence should be addressed in the criminal divisions across the United States and should not be minimized in families by family courts.

                Just as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have worked hard to stop drunk driving by making laws stiffer that address all of the deaths in this country as a result of driving drunk, so must we eradicate violence from our homes and neighborhoods with a no tolerance policy that does not change the status or criteria to determine the crime of assault depending on who the victim may be.

                As I have heard family law firms advertising on radio, TV and internet their services to men only, involved in “high conflict” divorces in Allegheny County PA, I fear they are advertising their services to cases involving abuse of victim families. This county is a "hotbed" for this type of representation that has shown favorable outcomes for criminal abusers in case after case in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Family Division. As you read through the pages of this site, I hope that you, the savvy reader, will understand and interpret these services the way that I have come to understand them from my own experience through the Allegheny County Family Division.

                I have tried to set this site up in chronological order but I believe some of the most important pages address Reunification Therapy, Custody Evaluations, the PA Superior Court, CYFS and Highmark Insurance. All of the pages will explain the savagery of this forced process and what can and does happen in many of these cases to the victim families. I have singled out these pages because they are serious issues that I believe will affect the largest number of people going through this process. Still, each page is important to give the reader the big picture of how you will be treated and how your children will be affected by this horrific experience.

                In the realm of custody alone, our case saw the largest number of "payees" for several custody hearings that were held on the following dates: 2-27-02, 5-2-2002, 6-2-2004, 6-24-04, and 8-10-05 and numerous other custody conciliations and motions that were filed to terrorize and legally harass the victims. All of these payees and ultimately the judge stole the possibility of a family home, educational funds, health and dental care and basic needs at the request of a wealthy, abusive father from children he had criminally victimized for years. I will show all of the costs paid to these payees and proof of how this family was left by the family division at the end of the road.


                Financially, we were left with no share of the marital assets outside of a small portion of one 401 K retirement account to insure payment to the lawyers and experts. We were given no way to purchase a family home, no healthcare for our adult disabled son who my ex husband was convicted of criminally abusing, no dental or orthodontic care for four children, no life insurance policy to secure child support, a tax problem that has left me owing all of the tax on the child support and all of the tax on the account to pay the legal fees and experts, an amount of child support that is less than 5% of father’s income a year and no educational funds for the children of a surgeon making over one million a year convicted of heinous abuse.

                Child support has remained unpaid in the amount of $200,000 dollars in the ordered bonus portions from 2002-2006. My ex husband with held 6 court ordered bonus shares that account for half of the total child support award for all four children. We were court ordered, on June 2, 2002, a 41% share of all bonuses that he received until the new fraudulent order, never seen or signed by me went into effect on November 9, 2006.

                My ex husband ignored the June 2, 2002-Nov. 9, 2006 order issuing only two bonus portions in December of 2002 and December of 2003. He attempted to offset the order with personal expenditures such as vacations paid for the by the practice for himself and his girlfriend/office manager to New Orleans, St. Louis, Texas, Michigan and Orlando etc. claiming these trips were not income to him but "education" for them both in a period of one year after bonuses were ordered to be given to the family.

                By attempting to spend all of the ordered bonuses with false business charges that used to be considered "income" to Kevin Clark from 1993-2001, he attempted to make his income appear to be less to deny the family the court ordered bonuses. Still, the order was clear and was completely ignored with no enforcement or action from family division. My lawyers did nothing to enforce for two reasons. Either they were paid off directly, or they were only interested in responding to legal actions rather than initiating any of our own as I was told "I could not afford" to be aggressive. My ex husband went on more "educational trips" to France, South Carolina beaches etc. using desperately needed funds for basic needs for the children.

                Kevin Clark had taken one trip yearly for CME from 1993-2001. This was the extent of his travel until he had to minimize his reported income to cheat his own children out of needed support.

                No educational trips (CME) were ever taken or paid for by the practice for the office manager from 1993-2001, before my now ex husband moved in with her. After they moved in together, all of the trips included her and the practice paid for her trips as if she were entitled to CME as a business expense. Meanwhile, the level of education that the office manager has is a high school diploma. She had started out as a receptionist in the practice.

                For the period of 1993-2000, my ex husband had seen three different law firms about the issue of embezzlement and this office manager. The last time was in December of 2000 just six months before he moved in with her. Because I was asked to come with my husband to each of these meetings about this issue, I contacted the last lawyer to obtain the proof that I would need that would be part of the divorce case. Because my now ex husband had insisted to lawyers, marriage counselors and even other local physicians that this woman was stealing large sums of money from his business even causing the practice to become top heavy with the IRS, I believed we were entitled to receive a portion of the stolen funds that we were entitled to as income for the those years. The family court judge blocked the subpoena to obtain the documents from the last lawyer in December of 2000 as a result of "attorney client privilege". Meanwhile, there was no "attorney client relationship" since I was part of all meetings with all three law firms admitted in the deposition taken by Kevin Clark. This crucial issue was ignored and obstructed by the family court allowing the issue of embezzlement to be protected and has never been investigated.

                My ex husband also overpaid state and federal taxes to the tune of  $36,878 in 2002 federal (no state return was provided) $49,758 in 2003 federal, and $56,668 in 2004 (federal only-the only discovery the judge allowed us was 2003-2004 while the case settled in Feb, 2006) to receive a refund thus making his W2 appear to be worth less in annual income.

                All of these tricks, along with claiming himself "head of my household" by using our son Michael as a tax deduction, were used to refuse desparately needed support for his own children. The support was needed for medical, dental and psychological care, rent, food and utilities as we were strapped with legal fees and expert fees driven by his legal team throughout the case as well as the big payoff in the end. In addition, Michael Clark has never had any contact with father since his departure in 2001 and does not qualify as a tax deduction.


                Because we were denied a divorce settlement, I received no funds to go back to college for retraining or education for a job opportunity, no health insurance that was removed without notification making me uninsurable with the lapse in coverage (See: Highmark Page), no alimony after taxes and legal fees (See: Support Page) for a sixteen year marriage with four children in spite of an admission of criminal spousal and child abuse by father. The child support/alimony was the only financial award that we received so it became even more important to collect all of it.

                I was assessed an "earning capacity" of $32,500.00 a year which has been deducted from father’s support obligation. This artificial income, assessed to me, has never been earned from 2002-2009. I have been unable to secure employment for $19,000 a year much less $32,500 with 20 years out of the workplace and my age as a discriminating factor for employers. I continued to search for a job that would pay enough to make up the support when it would be ended in Feb 2011 taking minimum wage jobs here and there and still working each week end as a vocalist. Still, I could not come up with a job that would pay enough without additional education which I can not afford. In the entire state of PA, the average amount that women are earning, according to Forbes magazine (Nov. 2009), is $642 per week. This includes women who have been working for 20 years, all levels of education and all ages. The "expert" who assessed this earning capacity was hired and paid for by my now ex husband while I was denied the funds from the judge to hire my own "vocational expert". Still, the statistics are widely available to interested parties. Social security and the Department of Labor had no problem providing me with the number of women in Allegheny County, employed at a starting salary of $32500, who are my age, with my level of experience and education unemployed since 1987 (agreed to by my now ex husband) and that number is "0".

                By allowing my now ex husband to asses me an artificial income that is non existent to the support case and by accepting a fraudulent statement of income of $209,000 a year by refusing to investigate a "pay stub" and a mortgage loan application (income listed at $25,600 per month) provided to the family division in 2004 proving an income in excess of $600,000 per year, the court has pushed this family into the poverty level making us eligible for food stamps and Medicaid. Burdening PA taxpayers is a huge problem that has been a result of the family court greed machine while the "payees" laugh all the way to the bank. The numbers must be staggering of families in this situation in Pennsylvania as these cases now range in the thousands. Father is now earning over one million dollars a year and is convicted of criminal abuse of his family while Pennsylvania has to pay for healthcare for his children.

                The custody orders worked in direct opposition to the "earning capacity" assessment. I was required, under the threat of fines and jail, to transport the children, during the work day to reunification therapy two hours each way. This was on father’s afternoon off. This made the possibility of a full time job impossible. My week ends were consumed with transporting children to court ordered supervised visitation which was an hour away. The court appointed custody evaluator diagnosed me as delusional, testing "above the line" for "schizophrenia" explaining that I could pass a lie detector test. He was referring to my account of the children reporting the sexual abuse to him at the first evaluation in 2002. Still, he suggested that I remain the sole physical and legal custodial parent of all four children including a special needs child.

                I emailed him to confirm his opinion asking for verification for social security disability. I thought he would have to refuse this verification because he could not agree to verify this condition to social security but he surprised even me:

                PLEASE CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE CLEARLY:

                This nonsense went on from 2001-2008. I kept waiting for my life to begin, a life free of harassment and full of hope for the future with my children healthy and secure but I regret to say that I am overwhelmed with the possiblity that I may never be able to progress beyond this reality.

                My children had and have many needs both medically and psychologically. My oldest son who is autistic required and still does require my support. I am responsible for his care. My 20 year old daughter suffered through many problems as a result of PTSD. I spent three years 2002-2005, transporting her to partial inpatient treatment three to four days a week and intensive outpatient treatment three evenings a week for an eating disorder, anxiety and trich (a hair pulling disorder). The younger children also required care, therapy, support and transportation to activities and supervised visitation.

                Supervised visitation was held in East Liberty, one hour away from where we live. I had to go back and forth twice each Saturday to drive the older two children to activities and return to pick up the younger two children from supervised visitation. I was supposed to accomplish all of this while I worked full time at a job that I never found for $32500 a year.

                As we were left in a dilapidated rental house with additional damages from Kevin Clark’s tirades and destructive rages, we were sued for $14,000 dollars by the landlord to make repairs so that the home would be inhabitable for the next unfortunate renters. Kevin Clark had agreed to repair all of the kitchen cabinets that he had kicked in as well as hire a contractor to repairs the numerous holes he punched in walls and doors he kicked in. The landlord refused to make any repairs in a 14 year tenancy and we were forced to live in this mess for a seven year divorce while Kevin Clark bought himself a large home in an affluent suburb in 2004.

                When December 2006 came, the month the divorce was final, we were denied a divorce settlement suggested by Judge Kathleen Mulligan including our share of the value of a medical/surgical practice in Sewickley, PA. (See: Attachment below-Letter-Proposal from Kurt Mulzet to Mark Alberts 1-20-06) I was in the position of having to pay the $14,000 dollars myself to make repairs to the rental home so that my children would be safe. The heater was broken. Major plumbing repairs were needed. The mold in the basement was unbearable as was the roof and most importantly, the electrical wiring caused shorts all over the house.

                The only money that I had left from a seven year divorce was enough to pay the federal and state taxes on the "income" received in my name and given to the lawyers and experts. I took this money along with the $39,000 dollars received two months later as half of the buy in money for the medical practice (the judge refused us an equal share of the practice value) and placed it on a house for my children that is now in foreclosure.

                The IRS came after me for the money that I put on the house and is now trying to "levy" the child support which is not enough to pay the mortgage and the bills and feed the family. Because the lawyers and judge fraudulently wrote into the settlement and support that all of the support is taxable to me, it will be able to be taken by the IRS as if it is alimony instead of child support.


                Currently on Support:

                On 2-16-2010, before a hearing officer Patricia Miller Esq., a hearing was held to obtain back bonuses (child support) with interest. This represented over half of the entire ordered child support for the children from 2001 to 2010. Instead, my ex husband was able to reduce the support using the fraudulent support order and settlement agreement while the hearing officer completely ignored the unpaid child support from with held bonuses 2002-2006 claiming that I gave up the back child support in a fraudulent support order that I never saw and never signed. I also made this known to the family division at the time of the order. They refused to acknowledge or investigate the order that I never consented to or even saw.

                For the hearing mentioned above, I brought a typed order (summary) of a hand written support order to the hearing. This typed order was supposed to be a transcript of the hand written order. Opposing counsel mentioned the words "December 2002 Bonus" which is not in the original written signed order but was typed in by a paid off family division worker. Opposing counsel repeated this fraud at the hearing on 2-16-2010 as it was created by him to establish this "on the record". When I attempted to "correct" the record to show that the original order, hand written by the Hearing Officer and signed, never stated this at all, it was ignored as non relevant. Meanwhile, I had clearly shown fraud conducted in the form of a fake order to benefit my now ex husband so that he could pay one bonus portion in December of 2002 instead of each bonus portion from June 25, 2002 until November 9, 2006 when a new fraudulent order was entered in the support case. This would mean the difference between $10,000 dollars in child support or $200,000 dollars in child support. The December 2002 bonus was altered by a fraudulent cash withdrawal of $11,000 dollars from the medical practice at the end of December and an August bonus that would offset the December 2002 bonus that we never knew about but were also entitled to receive. As I asked the hearing officer about appealing fraudulent orders, she stated, "I don’t think so." That is because my lawyer held back the settlement agreement for 8 months so the thirty day appeal was gone. When he filed the support order, he claimed he was going back to "fix" support after we got the settlement money that had also been with held to coerce a criminal plea deal. Of course this was a lie and after he got paid and even took a retainer for support, he vacated the case leaving us broke and unable to even afford representation. I am sure he is enjoying an excellent outcome in his cases before our judge as it was her suggestion that we receive no settlement. Below is the real order:

                A Complex support hearing was held on June 25, 2002 before HearingOfficer Gary Gilman. Soon thereafter, the Hearing Officer entered a signed order wherein the Hearing Office stated:

                "Husband receives bonuses in April and December each year.

                Defendant claimed he won’t receive the same this year. However,

                this H.O. is skeptical of this testimony. His salary continues to

                rise despite the planning of capital expenditures. However the

                “bonuses” do vary each year. Therefore, this H.O. believes that a

                percentage of same, when received, must be provided to Plaintiff.

                Husband is paying 41% of the total household support to wife,

                therefore husband should pay 41% of the bonus less the taxes the

                husband must pay on the same at the within tax rates found by

                this H.O..”

                (Click on the images to see clearly-also can be viewed at the bottom as an attachment)

                Here is the "typed transcript of the "same" order that opposing counsel quoted from yesterday:

                CLARK

                V. CLARK PACSES Case Number: 266103882

                Other Conditions:

                ON COURT LIST OF 06\252. EFFECTIVE 1021. DEFT SHALL PAY $6009/M FOR THE SUPPORT OF WIFE AND FOUR CHILDREN. EFFECTIVE 0122 DEFT SHALLPAY $6148/M FOR WIFE AND FOUR CHILDREN. DEFT SHALL PROVIDE MEDICAL INSURANCE AND PAY 89%OF

                ALL UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES EXCEEDING $250 ANNUALLY AS OF 1021 FOR WIFE AND EACH CHILD; PLTFF TO PAY 11% OF SAME. DEFT SHALL PAY 41% OF  ANY DECEMBER 2002 BONUS. LESS HIS EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AS DETERMINED HEREIN, WIHTIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT, TO PLTFF DIRECTLY. DEFT SHALL PAY 89% OF ALL CHILD CARE EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH EXCEED $134/M. PLTFF MUST PROVIDE INVOICES TO DEFT WIHTIN 10 DAYS OF THE EXPENSE FOR SAME; DEFT MUST REIMBURSE PLTFF WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIVING INVOICE. DEFT ABLE TO CLAIM ELDEST CHILD AS A DEPENDENTS ARE $10,457 AS OF 06\252. DEFT TO PAY $250/M ON SAME. RECOMMENDATIONS MAILED TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL 06\272.

                BELOW IS THE ACTUAL TYPED ORDER THAT WAS ALTERED AND THEN SENT TO ME WITH NO SIGNATURE: (Click on image)

                IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT AN ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEE OF THE FAMILY DIVISION HAS CHANGED A COURT ORDER TO CHEAT MY CHILDREN OUT OF $200,000 DOLLARS OF CHILD SUPPORT, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS SEALED THE CASE AND WILL REFUSE THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS TO INVESTIGATE.

                ON MARCH 10,2010, WE RECEIVED ANOTHER "NEW" ORDER. THE FIRST NEW ORDER ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2010, MODIFIED THE SUPPORT BY REDUCING IT $300 DOLLARS PER MONTH. IT ALSO GAVE THE PAYOR ILLEGAL CREDIT FOR ANOTHER OVERPAYMENT IN WHICH THERE IS NO ORDER TO JUSTIFY A CREDIT OF OVERPAYMENT. THEN, ON MARCH 8, 2010, ANOTHER NEW ORDER WAS ENTERED AFTER THIS WEB SITE WAS VIEWED BY, YOU GUESSED IT, THE FAMILY DIVISION! GOOGLE ANALYTICS PROVIDES ME WITH A LIST OF SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO VIEW THE PAGES. IT WILL NOT PROVIDE IP ADDRESSES BUT BY VIEWING SERVICE PROVIDERS, I DISCOVERED THAT THE FAMILY DIVISION LISTED AS THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT LOOKED AT THIS WEB SITE ON MARCH 8, 2010: (Click on image to enlarge)

                AFTER I SAW THAT THE FAMILY DIVISION HAD VIEWED THE WEB SITE, ANOTHER NEW ORDER WAS ENTERED ON MARCH 8, 2010 REDUCING OUR CHILD SUPPORT ANOTHER $1000 DOLLARS PER MONTH EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2010. NOT ONLY IS THIS NO COINCIDENCE BUT THE HEARING OFFICER HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE ORDER REFUSING TO WAIT ACCORDING TO THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I WILL INCLUDE, AFTER MY LAWYER PLEADED WITH HER THAT WE WOULD LOSE OUR HOME IF THE SUPPORT WERE REDUCED MORE THAN $200 PER MONTH. THE IRONY IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT KEVIN CLARK HAS NEVER PAID THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT FOR HIS TRUE INCOME FOR THE ENTIRE CASE AND THE CURRENT AMOUNT THAT WAS REDUCED IS LESS THAN ANY OTHER PERSON IN PA MAKING THE INCOME HE IS MAKING FOR THE CHILDREN THAT WERE ON THE ORDER.

                EVEN WHEN WE ARE HOMELESS, I WILL CONTINUE TO DO MY BEST TO CALL ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER….

                Father and his lawyer lowered the support from $5300 per month, taxable to me, $1300 dollars per month leaving us with $4000 per month, taxable to me and still leaving a $988 dollar per month credit into any future order.

                This is the entire support amount from a man who literally makes over one million dollars a year. This is the current support for a senior in high school, a freshman in high school, an adult disabled dependent and a 20 year old college student who lives with us.

                I have all proof of his prior income totaling over $600,000 for the Sewickley medical practice and the other 3 medical surgical practices that he now operates from. I believe the hearing officer did not want to be involved in the reality of the case refusing to listen to the reason that the support is not appropriate or how a support order was entered with my signature filled in by my ex husband’s lawyer. She sits on a small committee on the Pittsburgh Legal Journal with Mr. Alberts, opposing counsel so that she should not have been able to hear this case. In addition, the bonuses that are in question were ordered by another hearing officer Gillman who could and should have heard this case. This is why Ms. Miller was hand picked to deliver the final blow.  The final blow was delivered to a family who should have seen justice in the form of prison for a father who committed horrible crimes against his family. He continues to enjoy the financial suffering that he now controls and delivers to his victims.

                Having documented all of the fraud in the case and the criminal conviction will help expose a system that does not serve families equally. If you are controlled financially by an abusive spouse, you may as well forget the case because you are a loser walking in to the Allegheny County Family Division.

                The reduction in support was received by using the hand written over payment on the current fraudulent order signed for me by my ex husband’s lawyer of $10,689.11. He also used the $5300 dollar amount of support that had been part of the current order (that was consented to by my ex husband’s lawyer and my lawyer, all taxable to me and "non" modifiable to me only) as a basis to claim that the order was supposed to be for $5000 per month and should have been changed on January 1, 2007 according to the terms of the settlement agreement. Since there was no motion filed to change the order since the fraudulent order dated November 9, 2006 was entered, there is no way for my ex husband to be credited. They can "fix" all of that though and they did:



                The problem for any normal court process with the documents above would be obvious. The docket on the left has all of the orders entered in the support case. The page to the right refers to an order dated January 1, 2007 to base the credit of $300 per month on since January 1, 2007. There is no order dated January 1, 2007.

                This would not be possible in a "real" court. However, in the family division, anything is possible for a price. Maybe they will be able to pay someone over in court records to back date an order and then sign my name to it like they did with the prior order dated November 9, 2006.

                No one will stop them, no one will put them in jail and no one will care until it affects enough children with nothing to eat and no where to live. Then all of the local philanthropists can show how great they are by raising funds to help these poor children who would not be poor or need charity if support orders could not be changed for a price.


                Next we have the first order entered by the corrupt hearing officer on February 16, 2010 based on another non existent order dated March 1, 2006. Look at the docket sheet. There is no order dated March 1, 2006:



                Now he has been given credit for 38 months times $300 that he "overpaid" for a non existent order on child support based on an income of $209,000 dollars and $32,500 deducted from this.

                The reality is that this man is making over one million dollars per year from 5 medical/surgical practices, there is no $32,500 dollar income from me to deduct and his children have been left with nothing with the cooperation of corrupt officials that should be federally prosecuted.  The support is also scheduled to end, as per Judge Mulligan’s request, in Feb. 2011. This will end support for our daughter who will be 16 in Feb. 2011.

                Below is the fraudulent support order dated Nov. 9, 2006, giving me unallocated support (all taxable to me as if it is alimony) and giving convicted rapist Kevin Clark an "overpayment" for his efforts to coerce a criminal plea by with holding the settlement agreement, with holding the settlement money and paying the old support amount before the settlement agreement gave him a reduction on March 1, 2006. All of this was done to give the "appearance" that we had no settlement deal in the event of his incarceration. I suppose he was certain he would be convicted to go to these lengths when the burden was on the state. He was able to use financial pressure to escape any consequnces for the rape of his sons with a broomstick with the cooperation of the family court judge:

                Below is the email that I sent to my lawyer about the support order that he claims he never saw yet although I was told yesterday that he signed it and the hearing officer did not care what had happened to us:

                Subj:

                RE: Clark Support  Date: 11/13/2006 9:04:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

                From:

                kmulzet@rrblaw.com To: Valette61@aol.com

                Val:

                I will follow up on the Order. It was premature to allege that it was changed. I have not seen it yet.

                Please hold off until I get the facts straight.

                Kurt

                From: Valette61@aol.com [mailto:Valette61@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:09 AM

                To:

                Kurt Mulzet Subject: Clark Support

                Hi Kurt-

                I have submitted a complaint to family division. I have asked them to investigate Kevin’s income for the past three years and I have also reported that my consent for this new order was fraudulently submitted and that the order that I consented to and reviewed had been changed and submitted. I need to know if they will keep the past order in affect until this is investigated? Val


                Below is an email to family division about the fraudulent order:

                Subj:

                RE: Docket Case # FD01-01363-005 PACES CASE NUMBER 266103882 Valette Clark…

                Date: 11/20/2006 9:26:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time

                From:

                familyinfo@alleghenycourts.us

                To:

                Valette61@aol.com

                This order was done because of a consent agreement that was brought in by the

                defendant’s attorney on 11/9/06. If you would like to modify this order

                based on the fact that you feel the defendant’s income has changed from when

                you originally consented you or your attorney would need to motion the court.

                ________________________________

                From: Valette61@aol.com [mailto:Valette61@aol.com]

                Sent: Sun 11/19/2006 1:11 PM

                To: FAMILY DIVISION_INFO

                Subject: Docket Case # FD01-01363-005 PACES CASE NUMBER 266103882 Valette

                Clark…

                To whom it may concern:

                This is the order that I was asked to review. There was no amount in

                overpayment entered and there was no reference made to past support owed by

                Kevin Clark which my attorney was aware of. I did not even receive this to

                review until it was already submitted as if I had agreed to it. I am opposed

                to this order and do not agree that it is appropriate under the circumstances

                of fraudulent reporting of income for three years prior to the settlement

                agreement.

                Val Clark

                As a result of the order and hearing held on 2-16-10 and the reduction in support, all five of us will be moving into a homeless shelter or maybe an apartment. Because of the IRS levy on the child support from the tax year of 2006 when we received no settlement, I can no longer face the financial devastation we were left to endure by a convicted rapist and a corrupt judge and lawyers who work with her. While their father lives in a nice home, his children who he is convicted of heinously abusing, will end up homeless. This is a direct result of a judge who was so angered over criminal charges that were initiated by her own order, that she destroyed what life this family had left. My children do not understand how she could do this to them while she rewarded their father financially and destroyed their future.


                Do you think this is justice for a man who raped his son’s with a broomstick (criminally convicted), tried to cut off his wife’s head with a butcher knife (admitted), strangled his wife and attempted kill his entire family in a moving vehicle on the parkway? He admits kicking, punching, walking around naked for 10 years in front of the family, hanging children over banisters by their feet and mental torture to the entire family. Nevertheless, this is the financial position that we were left in. He was able to use the support and settlement to ensure a plea deal with the cooperation of the family division so that he can now continue to make a large income while the victims left in his wake will eventually parish.

                Psychologically, my children have suffered through numerous problems including depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders to name a few all of which their father has escaped paying any portion of the costs for treatment.

                Family court judges, legal service providers, expert service providers (custody evaluators, reunification therapists, Guardian Ad Litems) CYFS and court ordered support services are the source of the existing problems for victim families. Family court incomes depend on these types of cases that can last 5-10 years or as long as the abuser/single payer wants to force continued litigation. The victims have no way out as they cannot control the movement of the case with no funds to litigate which are with held by the family court judge. To make any change in a current operating system, you must work within the existing system but I also believe that the insight that a family can provide who has lived through this ordeal is important in shaping future policies.

                I have thought long and hard about new models and new laws to address this issue that is finally emerging into the public awareness born out of the evolution of civilized people; people who no longer want to tolerate violence in their homes, communities or neighborhoods and see the rise of family violence in horrendous cases reported on the evening news each week. To address this national disgrace and make any real impact, it will take society to view violence in the home as an actual crime and not be given a mixed message by family courts or law enforcement. It will also take a new approach to family law on a national level. 

                At the end of this forced process of custody evaluations, trials, forced visitation, removal of children from abused mothers to foster care services and reunification therapy for child victims of domestic violence, the affects are chilling and reflect the rise in violence exhibited by today’s youth. After the family court ignores and minimizes the violence that is inflicted in the home to these victims, the family court may penalize the other victim/parent and then proceed to focus on the recovery of the abuser while the victim family is silenced, called liars, ruined financially and further destroyed psychologically as a family unit. The family court, who was supposed to protect this family, punished them for their honesty. It is a twisted and sad commentary on a civilized nation. I have heard horror stories of violence against women and children in third world countries that is a common accepted daily occurrence in certain cultures. I never dreamed that the American legal system would use their courts and resources to further destroy a family who had suffered so much in this country.

                This is why all cases that begin with a PFA should start in the criminal division.

                Below are the remarks of Attorney General Eric Holder on June 2, 2009 as he tries in earnest to answer some important questions. The most important question in my experience is- "How do victims of domestic violence become victims again of the family court system?"

                I believe I can answer this question with a detailed website that shows how this happens and why it happens. Asking all of the people listed on the next page to give insight into why they get paid to do what they are doing will result in a self serving discussion that is similar to the fox guarding the hen house. I hope that the Attorney General will give us a voice on this issue as we and others like us who are going through this can offer the most honest account of this process and how it affects the abused family long term.

                Each facet of our lives that has been affected by the family case will be shown and examined. Proof in the form of documents will be provided to verify the claims that I am making. If we can not remove these cases from family divisions, I hope that family courts will change the goal in these types of cases from reunification with the abuser and his/her victims at any cost to focusing on the health and recovery of the victims of domestic violence.

                Because of the culture of corruption and the long term negative attitudes that have developed toward victims of domestic violence in the family courts, correcting this situation may only work by moving "domestic violence" into the criminal division where it belongs and out of the family division altogether.


                Remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder as Prepared for Delivery via Video to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment -Tuesday, June 2, 2009:

                Good morning and welcome to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment. I want to thank you for attending this very important conference. Domestic violence, in particular children exposed to domestic violence, is an issue that I have worked on for much of my career in public service.

                As a judge at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia I saw first hand the suffering and long-term trauma experienced by children exposed to violence. As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, I created the first Domestic Violence Unit in the office’s history. As Deputy Attorney General during the President Clinton Administration, I helped to launch the U.S. Department of Justice’s Children Exposed to Violence Initiative, as well as the Safe Start Initiative. And now, as Attorney General, I am committed to reinvigorating our work on this very important issue.

                The Office on Violence against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Family Violence Prevention Fund has planned this meeting to continue a conversation that began almost a decade ago, at the first National Summit held here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. That meeting brought together domestic violence advocates, child abuse workers and judges to address the critical need for coordinated services to family members victimized by both domestic violence and child abuse.

                This summit brings together a broader cross-discipline of professionals who do not commonly work together: domestic violence and child advocates, judges and other court personnel, attorneys, child welfare workers, guardian ad litem, mental health workers, researchers, and policy makers. While you may not always work in concert on this issue, you share a vision for safe and healthy families.

                I want to recognize the tremendous work that has continued over the past decade but for the next two days, I ask that you work together to identify what you have learned and to help us build an agenda for the future.

                As you are gathered here in this beautiful location, I hope that you will forge new alliances and a collective leadership that will help identify solutions that will have a lasting impact on the lives of mothers and children traumatized by family violence. I ask that you consider ways the Department of Justice can renew and strengthen its efforts to address this problem. We want to draw upon lessons gleaned from your work in communities throughout the country. We also want to know what has been left undone.

                Some of the topics that you will address may be more challenging than others. I hope you will especially discuss the most difficult issues I know many of you confront in your work:

                • Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system? 
                • Why are children of color over-represented in the child protection system? 
                • Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past? If so, what does that relationship look like?

                I ask that you explore all of these things while always remembering that the needs of children who are exposed to violence are inextricably linked to the needs of mothers who are the victims of domestic violence.

                As a father of one son and two daughters, I recognize the importance of healthy relationships and that all of us need to be role models and mentors for our children so that they have the best chance of living in communities and families free from violence.

                I want to thank you for your ongoing commitment to addressing child maltreatment and domestic violence. I fully support your work on behalf of mothers and children who are the victims of these crimes. The Department of Justice supports your work. And this Administration supports your work.

                I am looking forward to hearing about the ideas that surface at this meeting and to learning about how we can work together more effectively to end this cycle of violence. Thank you, and have a great summit.

                * All of the documents and information contained in this site from the Allegheny County Family Division Clark Case are the documents that were "incorporated" into the criminal case as a basis for the plea for Dr. Kevin Clark. The entire family case file was incorporated into the criminal case file. The criminal case is not sealed or gagged and is open to the public. This is the origin of all family case information on this entire website.

                Subpages (3): ALL OF THE PAYEES ARE TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE WEBSITE THE LIST OF "PAYEES" THE MOVEMENT OF A NINE YEAR CASE

                Attachments (29)
                • 11-17-06 email from Kurt to me verifying the support pleadings after the new order is signed on Nov. 9 2006.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:17 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  15k View Download
                • CLARK SUPPORT-Dec. 2002 Bonus, Motion for Contempt Dec. 3, 2003, Dec. 2003 Bonus.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 6:57 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  4737k View Download
                • Complaint and Cross Complaint filed by Val Clark.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 1:06 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  726k View Download
                • Dec. 15 payouts for Val Clark trust acct. from law firm-plea deal same day.pdf – on Jan 29, 2010 7:18 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  244k View Download
                • Deposition of Kevin Clark 2-8-02 referring to embezzlement and meeting with lawyers.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 12:10 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  23k View Download
                • E. Motion to enforce support.pdf – on Jan 28, 2010 12:32 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  3173k View Download
                • Email to and from family division about bonuses and orders.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 12:02 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  836k View Download
                • Exhibit D-Original charges, Plea Transcript, Indictment, Docket Sheet, email from DA verifying conviction to me and to re-unification therapist Dr. William Fischer of rape.pdf – on Jan 29, 2010 6:51 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  879k View Download
                • Expert Michael Brocks email to sue the firm.pdf – on Feb 1, 2010 12:05 PM by Valette Clark (version 2 / earlier versions)
                  152k View Download
                • Letter-Proposal from Kurt Mulzet to Mark Alberts 1-20-06.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:27 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  979k View Download
                • Motion to shut down http://www.valetteclark.com before Judge Mulligan.pdf – on Mar 20, 2010 11:58 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  3020k View Download
                • Orders from Mulligan denied.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 12:11 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  1255k View Download
                • Order to quash subpeona of Sharon Frank.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 12:22 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  87k View Download
                • PA TAX RETURN NOTICE VAL CLARK no ss num.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 1:04 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  710k View Download
                • Pages from SUPPORT HEARING SUMMARY_Page_1.jpg – on Feb 21, 2010 9:25 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  28k View Download
                • Pages from SUPPORT HEARING SUMMARY_Page_2.jpg – on Feb 21, 2010 9:25 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  117k View Download
                • Proposal from my lawyer to ex husband lawyer referring to the judges suggestion.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 6:54 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  863k View Download
                • Support Order dated 2-16-10, support order dated 3-8-10.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 11:56 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  1384k View Download
                • VAL CLARK TAX LETTERS DECEMBER 7 AND DECEMBER 20 2009-no ss num.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:15 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  2743k View Download
                • Wells Fargo Foreclosure 12-2009.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:14 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  433k View Download
                • email from Kurt about PACES order 11-13.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:22 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  12k View Download
                • email from family division about support order Val Clark.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:22 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  8k View Download
                • email to family division about paystub Val Clark.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 6:59 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  184k View Download
                • letter from Glasser firm about bonus refund.pdf – on Jan 28, 2010 2:35 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  137k View Download
                • letter to firm Polleck Begg.pdf – on Jan 28, 2010 12:38 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  502k View Download
                • letter verifying Kurt Mulzet with holding settlement agreement until 10-06-06.pdf – on Jan 27, 2010 12:27 PM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  16k View Download
                • mortgage loan info verifying income & downpayment.pdf – on Mar 22, 2010 6:58 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  499k View Download
                • typed order_Page_2.jpg – on Feb 21, 2010 9:27 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  65k View Download
                • valetteclark complex support hearing 2-16-10.txt – on Mar 22, 2010 6:54 AM by Valette Clark (version 1)
                  66k Download

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                PBS Documentary: Breaking The Silence; Children’s Stories

                In domestic law on March 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm

                 

                Vodpod videos no longer available.

                 

                Technorati Tags: ,,,

                Jessica Click-Hill Confirms Allegations & Refuses Contact

                In domestic law on March 27, 2010 at 10:18 pm

                 

                Parenting News Network™

                Mar 27, 2010

                Dean Click has been successful at hunting down and capturing Wendy Hill for the crime of raising her own child. Dean Click manipulated the court system taking custody of Jessica Click-Hill from her mother over 14 years ago despite Jessica’s complaints. California courts have been notorious for awarding custody to men whose children complain of abuse, basing custody decisions on hypothetical theories such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” made up by pedophile sympathizing doctor named Richard Gardner. After continued complaints by her daughter, Wendy Hill then disobeyed a custody order in an effort to protect her child. Wendy Hill has been arrested after being tracked down like an animal. Thankfully, Jessica is able to finally speak for herself. It’s time that her complaints are listened to. Jessica is saying that she does not want to see Dean Click and that he molested her. She has changed her name and is still in hiding, afraid that her father “is going to find me and show up on my doorstep.”

                Dean Click has maligned both Wendy Hill and Jessica Click-Hill claiming that it is Jessica that suffers from mental illness and that she has been brainwashed by her mother. Such claims are impossible to prove and are subjective and self-serving. This story of Wendy Hill protecting her child is very similar to another California case where a mother named Joyce Murphy fled with her daughter to protect her. Henry Parson, Joyce Murphy’s ex-husband, also claimed to be falsely accused and that Joyce too had “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Joyce and her daughter were also hunted down and captured. Unfortunately, her daughter was under 18 and she lost custody of her for 6 years. Had Henry Parson not been caught on video molesting children, to this day he would still be saying that he was falsely accused and that Joyce was mentally ill with Parental Alienation Syndrome.

                Once a mother is accused of being an “alienator” she is usually accused of being dangerous to the child and that she coaches, brainwashes, and alienates her children from the father. It’s the same rhetoric in case after case. Parental Alienation Syndrome is a catchphrase that convicts. It is used to blame other people for making things up and to deflect blame onto others. Allegations of alienation are used to malign and destroy relationships between protective parents and their children. This disorder is not a medically or scientifically accepted syndrome. It has been repeatedly denounced as junk science. Any person accusing someone who is trying to protect a child of this disorder needs to be closely scrutinized. It needs to be made illegal to accuse victims of being mentally ill or liars as it re-victimizes the victims and is yet one more way to inflict abuse on them.

                The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges published a warning in their 2009 publication, “A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases”

                C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation

                Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

                The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. 12

                The same ideas behind Parental Alienation Syndrome can be used just by claiming a protective parent is lying or is not credible as in the cases of Katie Tagle and Amy Castillo. Both mothers had concerns for the safety of their children and they were maligned as liars and their credibility was questioned. Both mothers had their worst fears come true. Amy Castillo’s three children were drowned by their father. Katie Tagle’s son Wyatt was shot by his father in January. It’s time to stop blaming protective parents and children and start questioning the credibility of people who point their finger at others.

                http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=627

                __,_._,___

                Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

                %d bloggers like this: