The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Archive for January, 2011|Monthly archive page

American Mothers Political Party stands Behind Kim Damrow– (MI) Judge M. Richard Knoblock being investigated for jailing mom without ‘cause’ now, AMPP believes JUDGE ‘faked’ his own alleged ‘death threat’ to FBI. AMPP is calling him out this Thursday on BTR

In domestic law on January 31, 2011 at 11:17 pm

American Mothers Political Party stands Behind Kim Damrow of Michigan

American Mothers Political Party BTR Show: This Thursday February 2, 2011 at 5 PM CST- 6 PM EST Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

American Mothers Political Party will have special guest Kim Damrow the mother recently sentenced to 12 hours in jail for custodial interference in Michigan. She is also the current wife of a state representative 84th District State Rep. Kurt E. Damrow  for Michigan.  Apparently now M. Richard Knoblock allowed her now to wait until Monday to serve the time as her child was hospitalized (so nice of him!)

The FBI received a complaint that “someone” (AMPP believes the Judge himself) that went to courthouse for the protest on Thurs or Friday in her support —-that the judge’s life was threatened. So now all her supporters are jumping ship…scared that the feds are coming in.

Anyone will to help out with blogging story and/or promoting Thurs show is much appreciated.

“I think that the feds should investigate and I also think that the judge reported it himself. fishy…”

  • She files complaint:

  • Judge then says he was threatened- after a large protest at courthouse and the complaint filed.(what a crock)


See articles below:

Breaking news: Attorney reports violation of code of conduct

Published: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:41 PM EST

BAD AXE – On Saturday, the attorney for Kim Damrow told the Tribune there has been information released that violates the code of conduct of professional responsibility imposed upon all judicial officials, attorneys and courthouse personnel.

“It’s not the press that violated the code,” said Nicole Saady, of Grosse Pointe.

Of the information that has been released, Saady said,  she has not verified all of it.

At this time, in the interest of protecting the safety, privacy and personal feelings of the Damrow family, all press inquiries are to go through Saady, she said.

Look to the Huron Daily Tribune as more details become available.

Editor’s note: Due to the high number of libelous comments posted under related articles, comments have been disabled on this article.


Hanson: Threat made against judge

By Kate Hessling

Tribune Staff Writer

Published: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:40 PM EST

BAD AXE — Police are investigating an alleged threat made earlier this week against Huron County Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock.

“We’ve received information of a threat against the judge and we’re looking into it, along with contacting the FBI,” Huron County Sheriff Kelly J. Hanson told the Tribune after being asked about the situation Friday.

Hanson stressed the investigation still is in the early stages.

“We don’t know how far along we’ll go with it, and I can’t comment about it other than it involves the formation of this rally,” Hanson said, referring to a rally supporters held for Kim Damrow.

Damrow was sentenced Monday to 12 hours in jail for violating a court order allowing the father of her 4-year-old son visitation. She said she did so in an effort to protect her son, as she said her ex-husband has a violent past and she does not believe he has reformed.

Damrow’s sentencing on Monday was followed by a number of events, specifically a large swelling of support organized on Facebook.

State Rep. Kurt E. Damrow, Kim Damrow’s husband, said he was appalled when learning of the threat.

“I’m appalled at a public figure being threatened — just as appalled as I am at a child being threatened,” he said.

Kurt Damrow said there should be no type of physical threats.

“This is a matter of compassion and love for children,” he said. “It just goes against everything that we’re presenting. … Any threat of violence of any type like this has no business on either side — either for or against.”

Hanson said given the recent shootings in Arizona, the threat has to be taken seriously.

“We don’t have any choice but to look at it,” he said. “ … We’re going to take it serious and look into it.”

Editor’s note: Due to the high number of libelous comments posted, comments have been disabled on this article.


Damrow released early

Allowed to be with sick son, but has to report back to jail next week

BAD AXE — Within hours after being booked in the Huron County Jail to serve a 12-hour sentence for contempt of court for not allowing the father of her youngest son visitation, Kim Damrow walked out of the courthouse a free woman —for the time being.

While picketers outside the Huron County Building were glad to see her free, the freedom didn’t come as a result of the court changing its mind: It was because her 4-year-old son was in the hospital.

Damrow, who is married to 84th District State Rep. Kurt E. Damrow, said her son, Boden, was running a very high temperature and Kurt Damrow took him to the hospital about 4 – 4:30 a.m. Friday. Kim Damrow said she could not go to the hospital because she had to be in Bad Axe to check in at the jail at 7 a.m. that morning.

The Damrows said Boden had a 103 degree temperature, was diagnosed with having influenza A, and the child was being held at Scheurer Hospital for observation.

Following a conference with attorneys involved in the case, Huron County Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ordered Kim Damrow could leave the jail Saturday to be with her son, though she would have to return to the jail at 9 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 5 to complete the remainder of her sentence.

Kim Damrow was sentenced to spend 12 hours in jail and pay $1,000 in fines/costs during a contempt hearing Monday. The hearing was one of many that have been held in a custody battle for 4-year-old Boden Noworyta, the son of Kim Damrow and Dustin J. Noworyta.

The parents

Noworyta married Kimberly S. (Dufty) Langley Sept. 23, 2005 by a Justice of Peace in Monroe County, according to the complaint of divorce.

Kimberly S. Noworyta filed the complaint for divorce in the family division of the Huron County Circuit Court May 22, 2008. The couple had lived together as husband and wife until on or about May 19, 2008, records state.

Kimberly and Dustin Noworyta had one child during their marriage, Boden J. Noworyta. Kimberly Noworyta had a second son from a previous marriage, and Dustin Noworyta had two daughters from two different relationships.

Since the divorce, Dustin Noworyta has reconciled with the mother of one of the two prior relationships, and he currently lives with her and her daughter. The other mother has full custody of Noworyta’s other daughter.

Following the divorce, Kimberly Noworyta’s prior name, Kimberly S. Dufty, was restored. The divorce order awarded Dufty full custody of Boden, and Dustin Noworyta was allowed supervised parenting time with the child, and that time was to be arranged by Dufty, the plaintiff. Noworyta, the defendant, also was ordered to pay $241 a month in child support.

Dufty lived in the Upper Thumb area with her two sons since the judgment of divorce was order and filed Jan. 1, 2009.

Court records indicate Noworyta had three visits with Boden prior to May 2010, and there was a 15-month period when there were no father-son visits.

May 2010

On May 5, 2010, Noworyta filed a motion in Huron County Circuit Court, alleging Dufty denied him parenting time and it is in the best interest of the child to establish parenting time.

“During the past year, every attempt to spend time with my son has been met with last minute cancellations, refusing to show and not providing an address for me to visit my son,” he states in that motion regarding parenting time. “The last time I have been allowed to see my son was over one year ago.”

Noworyta stated he had been refused phone calls with his son.

“I am trying to stay connected with my son to the best of my abilities being over three hours away, and would at least love to hear his voice between visits,” his motion states.

In her response to Noworyta’s motion, Damrow disputes the claims in his motion, stating she has not disobeyed the parenting order. It also outlined the circumstances of the three visits that took place since the divorce and her willingness to allow Noworyta to see Boden, so long as it’s in a safe place.

“I explained to him that if he wants to see Boden, he would have to come to Huron County and give me ample time to find a safe place to meet,” she said in her response, filed May 13, 2010. “I would not feel comfortable, nor would I feel safe, taking my son out of the county to an area that I am not knowledgeable of and meeting him with my son.”

She asked the court to not issue or establish parenting time because it would not be in the best interest of her son.

“I greatly fear that there is a likelihood of abuse during even supervised visitation, both mentally and physically,” Dufty stated.

Dufty said she tried to discuss adoption with Dustin because he begged one of the mothers of his other daughter’s to put that child up for adoption in the past, and had gone as long as four years without seeing that child, even though the daughter lived just 5 miles away from him.

Secondly, she said Kurt Damrow is the only father figure that Boden has known.

“At some point, I admit, it is my hope that Kurt will be allowed to adopt Boden, as he is a loving and constant man in Boden’s life,” Dufty stated.

Kimberly S. Dufty and Kurt Damrow were married May 22, 2010. Her legal name then changed to Kimberly (Kim) S. Damrow.

June/July 2010

On June 18, 2010, Noworyta filed a motion regarding parenting time and other relief, asking the court to require Kim Damrow to comply with the parenting time provisions in the judgment of divorce and to provide make-up time for her denial of parenting time.

On July 1, Knoblock ruled Noworyta could have supervised parenting for four hours on a select number of Sundays, through and including Aug. 22, 2010. The order stated the parties were to meet at the McDonald’s restaurant in Frankenmuth, and Noworyta then would have parenting time with Boden in the Frankenmuth area. Each party was allowed to bring an observer with them.

The order also required both parents, along with Boden, had to have psychologicals done by a psychologist as agreed to between the parties, at the expense of the plaintiff, Kim Damrow (because she asked the court to order the evaluations).

August 2010

On Aug. 17, 2010, Noworyta filed a motion for contempt and expanded parenting time, alleging Kim Damrow denied him parenting time July 25, 2010. The motion also states Kim Damrow was refusing to tell Boden Noworyta is his father; threatened to cut short or deny visits if Noworyta were to tell Boden he is his son.”

The motion states Kim Damrow repeatedly frustrated Noworyta’s efforts to call Boden, and Noworyta rarely had a normal conversation with Boden without interruption from Kim Damrow.

“ … It appears (Kim Damrow) is uncontrollable by anyone and will do what she pleases, even if it is in direct violation of the court’s order; (and) that she continues to obstruct any attempt of (Noworyta) to establish a personal relationship with his soon, going even so far as objecting to Boden being told (Noworyta) is his father.”

Noworyta’s motion states unless Kim Damrow’s held in contempt by the court for failing to abide by a stipulated court order, it will continue to be a struggle for Noworyta to have a normal relationship with his son.

The motion also states while appointments for the psychologicals had been scheduled to the satisfaction of both parties, Kim Damrow canceled them without notice to Noworyta or her attorney.

In her Aug. 19, 2010 response to the motion, Kim Damrow explained she had a change in attorneys since the previous hearing, and she was in contact with the individual who was to do the evaluation, and she asked the judge to postpone her evaluation. Also, her response states, the clinic was the one to cancel Noworyta’s appointment because they were unable to reach him by telephone.

As for the claims she denied him parenting time, Kim Damrow explained she was very ill on July 25, 2010 and tried numerous times to reach Noworyta, however, he did not have a phone so she could called the numerous phone numbers he makes calls from. She said she also sent e-mails to his partner and sister-in-law hours before he had to leave Dundee to go to Frankenmuth that day.

“I did tell Dustin that we should bring him back into Boden’s life slowly and that as sensitive as Boden is, let’s try to feel him out the best we can before we explain who (Noworyta) is,” she stated in her response. Her response claims when Noworyta first brought up the subject with Boden, Noworyta grabbed Boden and sat him on his lap very hard, shouting “Do you know who I am? I am your father.” And he broke out in tears, she said.

Regarding the difficulty of having phone conversations, Kim Damrow’s statement notes Boden rarely talks on the phone to anyone because he was 3 years old.

First contempt hearing

During the contempt hearing on Aug. 30, 2010, the accounts of the previous visitations and Noworyta’s mental stability were as different as black and white.

Noworyta’s Bad Axe attorney, Duane Cubitt, said the visitations went fine, and Boden and Noworyta got along fine, according to transcripts from the hearing.

“My time with Boden went great,” Noworyta said. “Kim spent a lot of time in the background trying to make it miserable, but that was about it …”

Cubitt painted Kim Damrow as being uncooperative, and said his client believes Kim Damrow intentionally did not show up for the July 25 parenting time.

He said she was being difficult as to the visitation’s venue, not allowing Noworyta to take Boden outside of the McDonald’s restaurant to go to a museum or park.

During her testimony, Kim Damrow said Boden was a different child before she divorced Noworyta.

“When Dustin was with us … all my family, they thought something was wrong with us. He was 21 months (old), he quit smiling, he was sullen, he was sad … you could tell he was fearful,” she said in the hearing transcripts. “It took a long time to bring him back to where he is today.”

That’s why Kim Damrow said she asked the court that if he wants visitation, it’s his obligation to prove his circumstances have changed. She testified he should be responsible for paying for his own evaluation, then following the psychologist’s orders and get treatment and take parenting classes

During cross examination, Kim Damrow told the court she was going to wait to tell Boden that Noworyta is his father.

“We were going to counseling as soon as possible to deal with it …,” she said. “I don’t want to mess him up any more than he’s been messed up. I don’t know the answers completely, I’m not claiming to be the best mother, I do my best.”

When asked if she doesn’t think Boden’s entitled to know who his dad is, Kim Damrow said yes — if Noworyta sticks around and gets mentally healthy.

Cubitt argued Noworyta is not unstable and he’s very capable of parenting children.

“So I don’t know where Kim comes up with this idea that somehow or other he’s a violent person and that her child is somehow endangered if he is around Boden without her being present,” Cubitt said.

With regard to her testimony about the child negatively reacting to the previous visitations, Cubitt said, “I mean, what 3-year-old wouldn’t be based on what the mother is putting this kid through. She won’t even acknowledge that Dustin, my client, is the child’s father. And that kind of gives you an insight into what kind of person she really is.”

But Kim Damrow’s stance has been that the safety of her child comes first, and she is doing what she can to protect — not harm — him.

Knoblock ordered the visitations take place for six hours in Huron County on alternate weekends, and the parties meet at the McDonald’s restaurant in Bad Axe. The judge ordered Noworyta’s mother or grandmother be present during all parenting times. He also ordered the psychological evaluations be scheduled and done.

He did not hold Kim Damrow in contempt.

“But if there’s further problems, I won’t hesitate to do that,” Knoblock warned. “But I’m not going to at this time.

November 2010

On Nov. 12, 2010, Kim Damrow entered an emergency motion asking the court to modify it’s Aug. 30, 2010 decision. Among the reasons, was an Oct. 31, 2010 incident where she says Noworyta acted in a violent manner. Also, she said it is not in the best interest of the child to participate in overnight visitation with Noworyta until his psychological records are produced by Huron Behavioral Health for evaluation and the psychological evaluations of are performed.

In Noworyta’s response, which Cubitt filed Nov. 19, 2010, Noworyta denies it is not in the child’s best interest to delay overnight visitation; claims Kim Damrow has had several months to complete the psychologicals; the parenting time has gone well; and the father and son enjoy each other’s company.

“Boden is a normal child when with (Noworyta),” the response reads. “He laughs, plays and is very interactive; Boden is full of life.”

Also on Nov. 19, 2010, Cubitt filed a motion for clarification, asking the court to, among other things, to expand the amount of parenting time to include all time provided for in the Huron County Friend of the Court parenting time guidelines, including extended summer parenting time.

In her answer to that motion, Kim Damrow asked the court deny the request.

December 2010

On Dec. 3, 2010, Knoblock ordered the psychological testing of all the parties be done in Bad Axe, as requested by Kim Damrow, and that there had to be make-up time scheduled because Kim Damrow failed to deliver Boden to the parenting time exchange location in Frankenmuth on Nov. 26.

On Dec. 4, 2010, Noworyta filed a motion asking the court to hold Kim Damrow in contempt because, among other complaints, she did not allow him visitation on Dec. 10, 2010.

Second contempt hearing

During a Dec. 16, 2010 public hearing, the court heard arguments and reviewed a doctor’s note stating Boden had been sick. The note didn’t specifically state he was too sick for visitation, and Kim Damrow was told future doctor notes would have to include that in order to suffice in court.

Knoblock did order to hold Kim Damrow in contempt of court for failing to providing parenting time the court previously ordered. However, he held the punishment in abeyance, pending her further compliance with the court’s parenting time orders.

The court also ordered arrangements be made for psychologicals and set Christmas parenting times.

The assessments

Tammy L. McPherson, licensed professional counselor of Bad Axe, conducted the psychological assessments on Kim Damrow and Noworyta pursuant to the Dec. 16, 2010 order.

According to the assessment, Kim Damrow reported no medical or mental health history.

“She is not prescribed any medications, however, does report high levels of stress, no appetite, difficulty sleeping and chest pains. She believes these symptoms are due to her fear about her son Boden’s safety while in care of (Noworyta),” McPherson’s letter states. “(Kim Damrow) believes her marriage to (Noworyta) to be one of physical and emotional abuse.”

McPherson reported that after further discussion regarding Kim Damrow’s fears, it is apparent (Kim Damrow) is concerned Boden could be emotionally abused by his father.

McPherson’s letter states Noworyta has no medical or legal history.

“He reports receiving mental health services for a short period of time in 2008, through Huron Behavioral Health,” she said, noting he signed a release to give her his records, and also released records from the Department of Human Services in order for the therapist to confirm he does not have an open case with any DHS agency, and no open case in any county was confirmed.

“After reviewing his records from HBH, it is apparent (Noworyta) was struggling with depression and utilizing alcohol as a coping mechanism,” McPherson’s letter reads. “He reports to not continuing the prescribed medication for depression, as he felt it wasn’t needed after he moved back to his hometown and was divorced. He reports being sober for the last three years. He denies any mood swings or depression currently.”

In her recommendations, McPherson said both parties would benefit from counseling (together) to resolve the conflicts that are preventing them from working as a parental team. She said it would be helpful for both parties to learn healthy communication skills and conflict resolution techniques.

January 2011

The defense filed a motion Jan. 18 asking the court to hold Kim Damrow in contempt for failing to allow parenting time previously ordered by the court for Jan. 14.

The motion states Boden enjoyed his Christmas parenting time with his father and step siblings, but did go home a half day early because Boden indicated he missed his mother and wanted to be returned to her. When it was time for the next visitation on Jan. 14, Kim Damrow failed to deliver Boden, the motion states.

Kim Damrow told the Tribune when she picked Boden up from the last visitation Noworyta was acting very suspicious, repeatedly stating she couldn’t call the cops. When she met him to pick up Boden, she said the child was screaming and crying, clinging to her and he would not look at Noworyta. She said Noworyta “just kept apologizing.”

She said she was concerned and took Boden to his pediatrician, Dr. Kala Reddy, to get a physical Jan. 3. According to a report submitted to the court from that doctor’s visit, it was stated that Boden was complaining of neck pain, had not eaten very well and had a temperature of 101. It also was noted Boden was fearful in the car, refusing to go to even a friend’s/relative’s house.

Reddy recommended the mother continue counseling, and she reassured Kim Damrow that she did not see any evidence of trauma to Boden’s neck.

Kim Damrow was able to take Boden back to the pediatrician Jan. 6. The reason for the visit was because the child had not been sleeping, and was in pain in his mouth because he was chewing the insides of his cheeks.

In her observation, Reddy reported Boden “is rather too quiet for his age and looks worried and pretty anxious. … He does not appear to be acutely physically ill, though.”

After a detailed physical, Reddy diagnosed the child’s condition as acute separation anxiety. In a Jan. 14 letter, she states she does not recommend he be removed from his mother at this time without the advice of a psychiatrist or child psychologist.

Both the defense and the court were unaware of the doctor’s note.

In the defense’s Jan. 18 motion, Noworyta asks the court to hold Kim Damrow in contempt and punish her accordingly, and require the plaintiff reimburse Noworyta for attorney fees and other costs.

Third contempt hearing

During a four and a half hour contempt hearing Monday, of which the complete transcripts are not yet available, Reddy testified about her dealings with Boden and her letter and written observations were admitted into evidence.

Despite the explanations given, Knoblock held Kim Damrow in contempt, noting “it’s clear to me from all the hearings I’ve had, the testimony that I’ve heard, and including hers and that of other people presented during these hearings, that she does not want (this) father (to) be in the life of the child, she wants to cut him out, that’s what she wants to do,” according to partial transcripts that were available Friday.

Knoblock said he believes Kim Damrow’s actions border on child abuse.

However, in regard to Reddy’s testimony, he said an evaluation needs to be done. He ordered an appointment be made, and that order was fulfilled later that afternoon.

Until the evaluation is complete, the judge ordered the defense hold off on the two phone calls the court awarded him for each week, and ordered future visitation be supervised.

Emergency hearing

Kim Damrow’s attorney argued submitted an emergency motion for stay and appeal Thursday, noting the plaintiff did not have enough time to prepare for a criminal contempt charge, it was believed the charge was civil. The attorney, Nicole Saady, of Grosse Pointe, noted she was hired to represent Damrow on Saturday.

Thus, the court was denying Kim Damrow’s due process rights by not giving her enough time to represent herself.

She also argued that Kim Damrow should be able to purge herself, i.e. correct the offense by providing make-up parenting time.

Knoblock disagreed, stating the motion specifically asked she be punished, which adequately put her on notice that she was being charged with criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a court order.

While he sentenced her to 12 hours in jail, Knoblock said the law provides that for a criminal contempt charge, the defendant could be sentenced up to 93 days in jail and fined up to $7,500.

Both sides respond

Cubitt said in no way is his client a threat to his son. He explained Noworyta left his job to move to Huron County and had problems finding employment, which lead to depression. Matters worsened as the divorce was not amicable, and it wasn’t until Noworyta moved out of the area that he was able to get back on his feet financially and turn his life around. Once he had, he filed a motion for parenting time to spend time with his child, Cubitt said.

But Kim Damrow said he hasn’t changed, and if anything, he’s gotten worse. She voiced frustrations that she is trying to protect her child, but the system is not allowing her to do so.

“I can’t protect my child, and it is the most horrifying feeling for a mother,” Kim Damrow told the Tribune.

On Friday, Kim Damrow vehemently disagreed that she is the cause of Boden’s anguish.

“Some have questioned whether Kurt and I are the ones causing the mental anguish. What a gross injustice of the system to accuse the mother, when the mother has no mental health issues,” Kim Damrow told the Tribune. “But the father’s records from Huron Behavioral Health clearly show that he had depression, that he abused alcohol and he was abusive. Why would she not be concerned for child?” Especially when Dr. Kayla Reddy, Boden’s pediatrician and the only professional to have ever seen Boden throughout this entire thing, Dr. Reddy says after a visit with his father, there was a drastic change in his behavior which she witnessed. And Dr. Reddy had cause to be alarm, and Dr. Reddy asked the court to not remove him from his mother at this time, and that by further removing him from his mother could cause permanent damage — that’s huge.”

Editor’s note: Due to the high number of libelous comments posted, comments have been disabled on this article.

Marin County: Audit Unveils Failure of Family Court – Sets Precedence For Needed Audits in Family Courts Nation Wide

In domestic law on January 29, 2011 at 6:50 am

Marin Voice: Audit unveils court problems

By Kathleen Russell
Guest op-ed column

Posted: 01/28/2011 01:59:00 AM PST

THE California Bureau of State Audits last week released its 109-page report, detailing the results of its 17-month audit of the Marin and Sacramento Family Courts.

Across the board and on nearly every measured aspect, the Sacramento and Marin family courts failed to meet the minimum standards required by law.

So you may wonder what the latest audit of the Marin family court means, and how the same report described by state Sen. Mark Leno as "quite disturbing" could be hailed by local Marin court officials as "proving beyond any doubt" that "there’s no problem."

Simple. The Marin Court has deliberately mischaracterized this audit as comprehensive and boasted that "the report does not contain a single finding of "… judges and mediators putting children at risk."

Interestingly, the Center for Judicial Excellence and our allies drafted an earlier audit request focused on evaluating "increasing evidence that children in custody disputes are being removed from their primary, non-abusive caretakers and placed in the custody of parents who have been identified as the children’s physical or sexual abusers."

The Administrative Office of the Courts — the lobbying arm of the California courts — labeled these "very serious allegations" and fought to narrow the scope of the audit, explaining in a May 19, 2009 letter, "these claims cannot be verified or refuted by the data collected in the audit."

The Marin Court has apparently forgotten the California judiciary’s stated position on the parameters of a viable audit.

The audit provides a valuable explanation as to why things remain awry in the Marin family court.

Consider some of the findings: The Marin Office of Family Court Services could not demonstrate that five of the seven family court mediators met even the minimum qualifications and training necessary to perform mediations and make custody recommendations. The court does not document and track complaints and potential conflicts of interest and their dispositions.

The Marin mediators’ current supervisor is not qualified to perform clinical supervision of family court mediators regarding its individual cases, as required by law.

For all eight sampled complaints filed against mediators, the manager did not document whether he consulted with the mediator during the complaint investigation. In a considerable number of instances, the audit reported "limitations in their ability to determine the number of complaints received," making their data unreliable.

We must wonder whether the mass document destruction by the court and others during an eight-month standoff with the state auditor contributed to the significant gaps in recordkeeping.

The Marin Court could not demonstrate that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain requirements. For three of the five sample cases that the auditor reviewed involving a private custody evaluator, domestic violence training certificates were not attached to completed evaluation reports, as required by California Rules of Court.

Quality control issues dominate the report.

Because of the national impact of our work to protect children in family court, the center was recognized in October by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at an intimate White House ceremony commemorating Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

We were also honored to coordinate and facilitate the first White House briefing on the national family court crisis last May.

While the Marin Court seems unable or unwilling to accept auditor criticism and instead is attacking the center, we remain steadfast in our nearly five-year commitment to try to work collaboratively with the Marin Court to improve its service to our community’s children.

We invite the Marin Superior Court to enlist the Marin County Bar Association and other interested stakeholders in a community forum to discuss how we can collaborate to transform Marin’s Family Court into a model of best practices that protects children and makes us all proud.

Kathleen Russell is executive director of the Marin Center for Judicial Excellence.


Barry Goldstein12:08 am

This issue should be discussed in the context of current scientific research about domestic violence cases. The research establishes that custody courts are routinely getting domestic violence cases wrong and making decisions that place children in jeopardy. This problem has continued longer than should have been tolerated in part because of the failure of the media to expose the harm to children. Accordingly I particularly appreciate you providing space for the column by Kathleen Russell in order to help educate the public.

As a result of the research, we are in a transition period from the outdated and discredited practices that have led to so many tragedies to the adoption of best practices based on the specialized body of scientific research now available about domestic violence. It is disappointing that the Marin courts initially acted in such a defensive and closed manner.

I hope they will look more closely at the report, the reaction to the report and the new research and take a more constructive approach to reforming the system in order to better protect children. I particularly like Kathleen’s suggestion that the court work together with the bar association and other stakeholders to adopt best practices. I would particularly recommend that the domestic violence community be included and be considered the leader in this process.

They are the resource in the community for responding to domestic violence. Sometimes they are mistakenly treated as if they were partisans, but that ignores the fact that the legislature and the courts have laws and policies to prevent domestic violence. We would never consider firefighters partisan because they always oppose arson so there is no reason to consider domestic violence advocates partisan because they support the court’s policy against domestic violence. The only difference is that firefighters don’t have to face arsonists’ rights groups and no one would treat arsonists and firefighters as two sides of a dispute who have to be treated equally.

Family Court Mafia: AMPP Mothers Are Coming For You!

In domestic law on January 29, 2011 at 5:25 am

We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it any more!!

AMPP—Back from the 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 2011.This is the year of the child.

Until Mothers and children’s voices are heard—We will NEVER shut up- We will never Give up—And we will NEVER Go AWAY

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Trouble with Women

In domestic law on January 29, 2011 at 4:54 am

Vodpod videos no longer available.

PETITION: Children Are Our Future, But Judges Send Them to Live with Abusers.

In domestic law on January 29, 2011 at 3:35 am

Please Sign The Petition:

Children are our future? Then why do judges send them to live with abusers??
Lenient Domestic Violence Laws: Why is our government scared of perpetrators?

Amplify’d from

If you know FOUR women, then you know someone who is going to experiece violence at some level in her life… and its your responsibility to sign and get four more people to sign it as well.  If not, the world will stay ignorant and our kids will be trapped as victimizers or victims. 

Have you ever heard the saying “Good Mamas don’t get their kids taken away from them?”  I heard it too.  Well… there is a catch… Good Mamas that left really bad men DO IN FACT lose custody of their children… all of the time….  In turn, the statistics will ASTONISH AND OUTRAGE YOU! 


Children are our future? Then why do judges send them to live with abusers??

In domestic law on January 29, 2011 at 12:07 am


Targeting: The President of the United States, The U.S. Senate, The U.S. House of Representatives, see more…

Started by: Kym Payne Lesley

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

Have you ever heard the saying "Good Mamas don’t get their kids taken away from them?"  I heard it too.  Well… there is a catch… Good Mamas that left really bad men DO IN FACT lose custody of their children… all of the time….  In turn, the statistics will ASTONISH AND OUTRAGE YOU!

The reason why we have all of the petitions against ANY kind of violence is because these perpetrators learned it from somewhere….  today our government, law makers, police force, etc teach young minds that they deserve to be abused until they become the abusers too.  Violence is passable & rewarded in America.

If you know FOUR women, then you know someone who is going to experiece violence at some level in her life… and its your responsibility to sign and get four more people to sign it as well.  If not, the world will stay ignorant and our kids will be trapped as victimizers or victims.

FACTS: Like Father Like Son, Like Mother Like Daughter
1. Witnessing violence between one’s parents or caretakers is the strongest risk factor of transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next… by becoming the aggressor or the victim who has learned through life… its acceptable.

2.Boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their own partners and children when they become adults.

3. 30% to 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violence also abuse children in the household.

4. 1.3 million physical assaults are reported by women who are abused by their intimate partner… and to make it worse, msot cases of domestic violence is never even reported.

5.  Studies conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, have found documented evidence of domestic violence in 20-55% of contested custody cases.

6. A survey of battered women by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that courts awarded joint or sole custody to the alleged batterers 56-74% of the time (depending on the county).  Many of these cases involved documented child abuse or adult abuse.

7. A study of 300 cases over a 10-year period in which the mother sought to protect the child from sexual abuse, found that 70% resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody; in 20% of the cases the mothers completely lost custody, and many of these lost all visitation rights.

8. Abusive fathers are twice as liekly to seek sole custody of children.

9. In 2010, we are close to the 100 DEATHS mark due to the Family Court System awarding sole custody or joint custody to Domestic Violence offenders.



Lenient Domestic Violence Laws: Why is our government scared of perpetrators?

If 9 out of 10 men that take mothers to court to obtain sole custody are domestic violence offenders… AND…. 70% of those perpetrators win sole custody… what is to become of our future?

Our children are dying at a rate of 5 a day due to child abuse.  75% are under the age of 4.  That rate almost doubled since 1995… so have the rates of Domestic Violence Offenders who gain sole custody.  This is our fault for not changing our world and saving our babies. 

Women who are "good mothers trying to protect their children" are being removed from their children’s lives or getting only supervised visitation. 

Thousands of women are being muted by the Family Court System to not speak of her Domestic Violence experience.  Saying the problem is "embarrassing or shaming the children" by the mothers who speak out… when the problem is the fathers who are unable to show the children a real example of a "man".

Children are learning that violence is rewarded.  So… their problem solving skills are being formed by our government that won’t put a concrete boundary around the influence of violent offenders over our children.

You are a political figure with the power to make a change.  Leave a big footprint in the world please, if you won’t stand up for our women and children…  they will never be able to stand themselves.

Take a closer look at the statistics.  Then take a close look at stiffer laws and more effective consequences for people who hurt the ones they are supposed to protect. 

Much Love…. I know you can help… and trust that you will.


Rikki Dombrowski: Don’t Give Up – Love, Hope and Empowerment—The Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

In domestic law on January 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm

Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!


Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.

This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.

Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.

Rikki Dombrowski– Run Like The Wind…


Hope Love Power and enlightenment

Vodpod videos no longer available.


I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow,

I am the sun on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn rain.


When you awaken in the morning’s hush,

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the soft stars that shine at night.


Do not stand at my grave and weep

I am not there; I do not sleep.

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

I am not there; I did not die.

by, Mary Elizabeth Frye


Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

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

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

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

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

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

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

So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON’s personal discretion–which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"–but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (67 Direct Contempt’s Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered–though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details….) But of course, Dad didn’t exactly encourage or welcome contact either–that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not optimistic as to the outcome.

But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system’s control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about.

Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.

But at least it’s something to hope for.

Continue reading at Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage


Claudine Dombrowski and the love for her Daughter Rikki Dombrowski – Fly High Fly Free— they can not chain the wind, no matter how hard they try.

Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?

In domestic law on January 27, 2011 at 10:38 pm

Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?

tanaka_headA domestic violence survivor, Maria Styke-Marquez, appears alone in Judge Keith Tanaka’s Second Circuit courtroom where, according to documents filed by the perpetrator’sattorney, Mimi DeJardins, the judge will grant herabuser’s request to permanently relocate to Minnesota with the former couple’s 2 1/2 year-old daughter, removing her not only from the island of her birth, but from her mother.

The child’s father, Bruce Anthony Sotelo Jr., was convicted and held in jail for beating a pregnant Ms. Styke-Marquez so severely in 2007 that the 4 month-old baby she was carrying may have died as a result of the attack that left Ms. Styke-Marquez with a concussion, broken ribs, cracked teeth, a split lip and contusions.

Hawaii State Statute 571-46(9) perpetrators of family violence are not candidates for custody of their children, yet in September, Judge Tanaka ruled to give full physical/legal custody of the little girl to the man who put her mother in the hospital. Is that contrary to statute? Not if facts support the ruling.

Financially devastated from the litigation her abuser has put her through, Ms. Styke-Marquez, unable to afford an attorney, walked into the courtroom alone to face her abuser (who as recently as November 19th has a criminal contempt charge lodged against him), his attorney (who is also a Per Diem judge) and a judge who has already ruled against he. "My last and only hope to save my daughter is to call public attention to what’s going on and I’m not the only one this is happening to – I know so many other domestic violence survivors who have lost custody of their

children to their perpetrators as well which only tells me that this is no small problem. I’m a protective parent, not a perfect one, and never tried to keep our daughter from her father so I can’t understand how this is being allowed to happen" says Ms. Styke-Marquez.

She reportedly collapsed in courtroom, and was transported to hospital and the hearing continued without her.

Final outcome of the hearing is at this time, unknown. But words from the Judiciary allege factual mistakes and erroneous statements of law by Angels.


-1#4 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:13

Tanaka allowed him to move so he can live with his parents rent free and work as a food server for 7.25 an hour when as a nurse i can make 35.00 an hour, how does that make sense? and for him to rip her away from her mother who nursed on MY breasts, and took care of her better than they ever can????? My question to Tanaka is, What happened to you? What happened in your marriage or your high school love, some woman must have hurt you extremely bad and it must have been with children or you just know the way to get back at them or hurt the woman who has hurt you is through their children, because you men all know that our hearts mend after leaving you, actually our life’s our better without you men in em… you men see this and know the only way to truly beat us once again is through our children! I’m considering having an investigation done on Tanaka to see about the women in his past and to see who he was abusive to? Tanaka is to evil you can see it in his eyes, beetle eyes- hatred


-1#3 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:05

I have filed asking for a "New trial and or alternative reconsideration on his decision, but we all know he will deny this, I had filed an emergency stay on 12-30-10 and he put it on the calender for 1-26-11 at 1:30pm but still allowed for my angel to be moved to the mainland without even saying goodbye to her primary attachment "me- her mother"… How can "paradise" be so corrupted? Bruce may have beat me and terminated my pregnancy, and I dealt with that by leaving him and living my life for my then 5 month pregnancy (I was 5 months prego when he started to push me again, so I kicked him out for good) and then I had my precious angel Malie alone in the hospital and raised her by myself working as a nurse and then he wants to take take her from me because he seen I picked up and was living well without him and plus they upped his CS from $50.00 a month to $780.00 a month, this is when his mother stepped in and said her son will not give me that money and they hired Desjardins


-1#2 mia kai 2011-01-23 20:50

YES this BEAST of a Judge did give my precious angel to my abuser. When I had filed for a pre-trial before my trial to ask for a "custody evaluator and a GAL appointed, he denied it, and during the trial in the beginning I asked for him to reconsider because this would be a "traumatic life changing experience to be separated across the ocean from her mother" and he the BEAST stated "well you just declared yourself to be indigent so how are you going to pay for one?" I said, I am a mother,a protective mother at that and this is my precious little babies life we are talking about, I’m positive given the opportunity to be evaluated I will find the monies to pay for one". He said NO!!!!!!! and allowed my abuser and to the abuser’s own flesh and blood to move to the mainland… Tanaka, on the bench stated "Ms. Styke I know you are a fit and loving parent" but b cuz i had to call the police 14 times for custodial interference I was at fault and he said I was putting my daughter in harms way.


-4#1 valeriemaui 2010-12-04 17:19

Tanaka needs a seat not one on the bench! aeeed


Parental Alienation: It’s About More Than "A Uterus, Divorce Papers and Bruises" Cathy Meyer Certified Divorce Coach, Marriage Educator and Legal Investigator

In domestic law on January 27, 2011 at 10:02 pm

and a complete sock puppet to the whores of the court Dr. William Bernet, Dr. Richard Warshak, Dr. Richard Gardner. . html



A recent study showed that 49% of Statistics are made up — ‘on the spot’.
as per your quoted: "Judith Ray, a licensed family therapist in Colorado Springs."- name your reference.

APA: The Evidentiar­y Admissibil­ity of Parental Alienation Syndrome: American Psychiatri­c Associatio­n http://www­­i/pii/fami­lyvio/issu­e5.html
Evidence shows that women who raise concerns about family violence during custody litigation run the risk of losing their children to the bogus pseudo-non scientific PAS.
PAS only exists among men who have battered the mother and seek to further ‘control’ and ‘punish’ the mother for leaving. http://bit­.ly/cYjXEg
Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: Why Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers Are Not "PAS"
There is valid research legal and psychiatri­c just to mention a scant few of the many: the American District Attorneys Associatio­n, The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases. http://www­.ncjfcj.or­g/images/s­tories/dep­t/fvd/pdf/­judicial%20guide.p­df
A very dangerous article- this gets people killed. Sadly, they are the domestic violence victims and or their children. http://bit­.ly/9yYhlB


It once again seems that as in your article you do not separate PAS allegation­s and Domestic Violence. You lump then into one. It is wrong to dismiss domestic violence so nonchalant­ly.
Have read Dr Evan Starks ‘Coercive Control" part of the book is on Google Books here is a intro to his book http://bit­.ly/fp1Pqh
The Civic Research Institute ( A Law Center) has also addressed this most recently in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody http://www­.civicrese­archinstit­­ac.html


One of Dr. William Bernet’s criteria is a child be an "independe­nt thinker." OMG, as a child who watched my mother get beat all the time, and not liking my father for it, which I independen­tly thought of myself, I am appalled!



There is a problem with the author’s analysis of domestic violence (DV) and its connection with PAS. It is shortsight­ed to say that the victim of DV has only an individual justificat­ion to limit a batterer’s contact with the victim and not with the children.

Check any domestic violence research and you will find that DV is learned behavior. Allowing a batterer unfettered contact with the children condones the abuser’s conduct and sends a message to the children to accept the abuser’s conduct as being permissible and normal.

As an attorney with over 30 years experience in the field of family law, I would expect at a minimum that an adult batterer in a child custody case participat­e in anger management treatment and some form of family systems counseling to ensure that the children will not be replicatin­g the abusive cycle in their future adult relationsh­ips.



The Children’s Legal Rights Journal has an excellent piece on evidentiar­y admissibil­ity of "PAS"



What is the reference for the statistic that PAS is 50-50? Somebody’s word is not evidence. That’s shoddy journalism­. It’s nowhere in the literature­, while the fact that it’s used against women in the majority of cases is.
Where is the background material on the FAthers Rights Movement – most consider them a backlash group to women’s gains (antifemin­ist)- even scholarly writings.
This blog post is using NOW as a punching bag despite the fact that legal, medical and psychologi­cal organizati­ons have all discredite­d PAS.
Is NOW easier to attack? Easier to gain proponents­? That would be shame to use this tactic rather than the scientific merits of a so-called pschologic­al diagnosis.



The man who created PAS was badly discredite­d and publicly shamed when his exaggerati­ons about his credential­s and his methods were exposed. Sad to say, he died a violent death at his own hands – a knife plunged into his throat and heart – and there are those who believe he suffered from a debillitat­ing and incurable painful illness, while others connect it to the profession­al and public shame he began to experience­. He made a great deal of money testifying in court, more often hired by attorneys representi­ng the father. Most of his work in identifyin­g "PAS" was based on the mother’s behavior. In fact, most of his research was based on mother-per­petrated parental alienation­. It was not only individual­s, but gender-inc­lusive profession­al groups that declared his work to have no merit – including the American Psychologi­cal Associatio­n.
All in all, the behavior of trying to influence children not to freely love the other parent is despicable­. However, basing it on the work of Richard Gardner is like making apple pie out of rotten, worm-ridde­n apples. We’ve really got to look at gender-neu­tral, individual behaviors, rather than bashing advocacy movements like NOW and the Father’s Rights groups. That just isn’t productive­. Helping individual­s, however, is very productive­.




And sadly experts have all agreed that there are many misdiagnos­is of Borderlin­e – in which BPD is being mistaken for PTSD. And quite simply the best way to cure PTSD is to remove the trauma. For many abused mothers it is recurring trauma to be forced to send her children to an abusive man. One need only look at recent headlines (http://das­tardlydads­.blogspot.­com) to realize that many many more men are hurting women and children than women hurting men and children. And it is really sad that a person’s right to be free from abuse is trumped by a parents right to have a relationsh­ip with a child. I have passed along the posts made concerning this to a blogger who exposes female (mother) hatred and she has assured me that a post will be forthcomin­g.


Cathy, the American Judges Associatio­n, the American Bar Associatio­n, the National District Attorney’s Associatio­n and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have all debunked "PAS" with the latter warning family court judges the last couple of years not to accept claims of "parental alienation syndrome" or "parental alienation­" because of its well know use by abusers to get child custody from their victims. This is their words directly in their judge’s guide. It is horrific to have children go to a mother’s abuser. I had it happen to me as a child, and again as a mother. It is a popular legal tool of abuse that is happening frequently­. A conservati­ve estimate of 58,000 children a year are given to abusers was released last year. Also, the American Bar Associatio­n on their website dealing with domestic violence and child custody said in their research, they found that among false allegation­s, fathers were far more likely to use false allegation­s vs. mothers (21% versus 1.3%). They indicated in this document that claims of "parental alienation­" from abusers were definitely a problem and they were getting custody of children with this favorite legal tool of abuse. This all comes not from a child and a mother who has suffered at the hands of an abuser getting custody, but from many profession­al organizati­ons seeing victims of abuse losing their children because of the psych’s running wild through the courts, making lots of $$$ doing this.


"I am more interested in protecting a child from the harm parental alienation does than protecting a few women who have suffered abuse. Especially since it would seem, the children are being abused by PAS at a higher rate than women are being abuse by a husband."

A few moms who have suffered ‘abuse’??? 1-3 women will experience domestic violence in their life times.
How many of those 3 have children?

The leading cause of death to pregnant women is intimate partner violencehttp://bit­.ly/fpD4l4 WOW!!! How many women get pregnant?
This is truly scary on its own with out the ‘control’ of yet one more thing PAS, HAP or any other buzz word for leniency and dismal of physical crimes against persons. a Felony unless of course the victim is is your wife. then it becomes ‘domestic’­ barely a misdemeano­r.

We as a society really do not care about our children to allow their mothers to be killed and their children taken when they do try to leave.



Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women 18-24. At least 3 women die every day. In family court, estimates run high for domestic violence since family court is "the place" for high conflict and abuse.

Use of the term PAS does not only punish and harm women – it harms children. A study done by Harvard’s Jay Silverman found that about 54% of cases involving child sexual abuse, a counter of PAS was used.
When any allegation of abuse in used in court – DV, child abuse, or child sexual abuse – PA can be used to counter the claim.

The web site on the Nat’l District Attorney’s Associatio­n says PA harms abused children.

It would either be disingenuous or biased to say there is no harm to children from the misuse of PA.

Furthermor­e, NOW is a convenient punching bag – far more legal, scientific and psychologi­cal associatio­ns have warned against the use of PA.

The Women in Pschycolog­y web site lists several mental health claims that are biased towards women, including PA – – why weren’t they attacked? Way too easy to attack NOW and not fair to readers to ignore all the organizati­ons that discredit PAS.


So the American Judges Associatio­n, American Bar Associatio­n, the National District Attorney’s Associatio­n and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are hate groups? They have all debunked the use of "parental alienation­" in courts because of it’s well known use by abusers in court. Do children get lied to and do parents behave badly? Yes, they do, but children aren’t that guilable. One of the criteria in Dr. William Bernet’s definition of "parental alienation disorder" is that a child is an "independe­nt thinker." Come on…as a child victim given to an abuser, I am appalled by this.


Parental Alienation: It Is About "A Uterus, Divorce Papers and Bruises"

In domestic law on January 27, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Cathy Meyer of the Huffington Post  – a pro abuser and pro pedophile used the title

Parental Alienation: It’s About More Than "A Uterus, Divorce Papers and Bruises"

to once again Diminish Domestic Violence, protect the abusers, and pom-mom ra-ra for the psycho quacks like Dr. Richard Warshak who make a profit pushing this dangerous child and mother killing yet highly profitable ‘theory’  —

Sadly after the few articles that are factual in content get published as with below article – and Cathy Meyer — in response to –  article as titled above–as is the trend with mainstream media. — Huff post really goes all out to protect these abusers, pedophiles and killers. HuffPo should be disgraced—but they are not.

So Cathy Meyer and HuffPo –here’s to you and your inept journalistic skills—fortunately there are other and better bloggers.

Parental Alienation and Domestic Violence

by Joan Dawson


“I hope there’s more cases just like this, where people don’t want to let their spouses see their kids…I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids.”

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having “not one ounce of remorse” for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife ‘alienating’ the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, “Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent’s own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors.”

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating,” vindictive” mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse – interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child – are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it’s not just domestic violence survivors’ advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, “PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children.”

That hasn’t stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.

She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying,” and later, “Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that she used to deny him access to his son.

Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here:

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It’s easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association’s 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation – even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to “get over” the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins’ Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom’s fear was “interfering in his relationship with us.” Jennifer’s mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That’s over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm’s way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to “solve” the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who’ve been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called “toxic” to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn’t until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter’s Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it’s referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence – rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who’ve lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn’t hand an angry man a gun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence

%d bloggers like this: