The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Archive for March, 2011|Monthly archive page


In domestic law on March 31, 2011 at 11:11 pm


"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., Child Custody Litigation (1986), p.93

Sexualizing children can have procreative purposes, because a sexualized child is more likely to reproduce at an earlier age. "The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation."

    Gardner, Richard A., True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992), pp.24-25

"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

"There is a whole continuum that must be considered here, from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities."

    Ibid. p.548

"Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible act. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, ‘Nothing’s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.’ In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters."

    Ibid. p.549

"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

"Mothers who have been sexually abused as children may have residual anger toward her molesting father or other sexual molester, and this may be interfering with her relationship with her husband. This should be explored in depth, and she should be helped to reduce such residual anger… Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children."

    Ibid. p.585

"It is likely that the mother has sexual problems… In many cases she herself was sexually molested as a child… She may never have achieved an orgasm — in spite of the fact that she was sexually molested, in spite of the fact that she had many lovers, and in spite of the fact that she is now married. The therapist, then, does well to try to help her achieve such gratification. Verbal statements about the pleasures of orgastic response are not likely to prove very useful. One has to encourage experiences, under proper situations of relaxation, which will enable her to achieve the goal of orgastic response… Vibrators can be extremely useful in this regard, and one must try to overcome any inhibition she may have with regard to their use… her own diminished guilt over masturbation will make it easier for her to encourage the practice in her daughter, if this is warranted. And her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification."

    Ibid. pp.584-585

"If he [the molesting father] doesn’t know this already, he has to be helped to appreciate that pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world. He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations… He has had a certain amount of back [sic] luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself."

    Ibid. pp.593

"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

Mandated reporting of child abuse has resulted in the "reporting of the most frivolous and absurd accusations by two- and three-year-olds, vengeful former wives, hysterical mothers of nursery school children, and severely disturbed women against their elderly fathers."

    Gardner, Richard A., Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5(1), p.26

"We need well-publicized civil lawsuits against incompetent and/or overzealous psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protection workers, ‘child advocates,’ police, and detectives whose ineptitude has promulgated a false accusation."

    Ibid. p.26


responding to criticisms of PAS theory

by liz

by Judith M. Simon

by John E. B. Meyers, Esq.

by Kelly Patricia O’Meara


Amy Leitchenberg, sons Duncan and Jack Murdered by their Father

In domestic law on March 31, 2011 at 2:02 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

It’s not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.

In domestic law on March 31, 2011 at 1:14 pm

Men’s murderous revenge

    Illustration: Spooner

    Illustration: Spooner

    It’s not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.

    Since Arthur Freeman was found guilty of murdering his four-year-old daughter, Darcey, much of the media focus has been on the distress of fathers going through separation and custody disputes. There has been a call for more support for fathers.

    However, we must ask ourselves whether we are losing sight of the victims and, more importantly, whether this is the best approach to preventing these deaths from occurring in the future.

    While the community understandably struggles to comprehend a parent killing a child, our research shows that these are not inexplicable tragedies. There is a particular type of filicide (the killing of children by parents) that occurs in the context of the separation of the parents.

    In these ”spousal revenge” cases – as recognised by the Freeman jury – fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners. There is usually no prior violence against the children. In fact, they appear to love their children. The act of killing is directed towards harming the child’s mother. The motive is revenge.

    In the case of Freeman and Robert Farquharson (found guilty of three counts of murder of his sons Bailey, Tyler and Jai, aged two to 10, who drowned in a dam near Winchelsea), both fathers indicated that they wished to punish their ex-partner. Shortly before killing Darcey, Freeman told his ex-wife to say goodbye to her children and that she would never see them again – clearly to make her suffer. Farquharson told a friend that he would make his ex-wife suffer by taking what mattered to her most – her children.

    Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it.

    There is no logic to the thinking that if a person is distressed about not spending enough time with their kids they would decide to kill them.

    If, however, they are consumed with anger and hatred towards their ex-partner and wish to hurt them, then it is, tragically, a very effective means to do so.

    The killing of the children in such cases should be recognised as a form of violence against the mother. We need to explore the relationship between the parents in order to understand the killing of children. In particular, the father’s attitudes and behaviour towards the mother before, and after, separation must be examined. VicHealth has clearly identified the underlying causes of violence against women as including belief in rigid gender roles and a masculine sense of entitlement.

    What we really need to challenge is the sense of entitlement that some men have over their families, an entitlement that leads them to believe that their partner has no right to leave them and no right to form a new relationship, and that punishing her is justified because of the suffering they themselves experience.

    The current focus of commentary suggests that men are victims of the family law system. The mothers seem to be implicitly blamed for the distress their partners experienced when they left them.

    Let’s be clear: the first and foremost victims here are the children whose lives are taken. The mothers, whose children have died in perhaps the worst way imaginable, are also the victims, as are remaining siblings and other family members. Darcey Freeman’s mother, Peta Barnes, had expressed concerns about the safety of her children before Darcey’s death. She also expressed concerns about Arthur Freeman’s ”anger management issues” and mood swings. It is important that such concerns are heard and responded to appropriately by a broad range of professionals coming into contact with separating parents, as well as by family and friends.

    The family law process must make children’s safety its absolute priority. Importantly, the federal government has a family law bill before Parliament that prioritises the safety of children in family law matters.

    The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoriaacknowledges that separation and family breakdown can be incredibly difficult for parents. Parents should be assisted to deal with separation and encouraged to take responsibility for their behaviour. As a community, we need to focus on building positive and respectful relationships.

    We support the call for greater services and support. We ask that these services be equipped to identify and respond to risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents. We need to ensure there is accurate and reliable screening and risk assessment for all forms of family violence. These cases demonstrate that the risk of harm to children is closely linked to risks of harm to the mother.

    Cases such as Freeman’s have a profound impact on the community and we are right to search for answers. Unfortunately, there has been very little research on parents who kill their children in the past decade in Australia. If we are to find ways to prevent these deaths, we need a far better understanding of why and how they occur.

    Father Accused of Family Torture, Murder Appears in Court

    In domestic law on March 31, 2011 at 1:00 pm

        SAN BERNARDINO (KTLA) — A 35-year-old father accused of killing his teenage son and torturing his wife and four other children appeared in San Bernardino Superior Court Wednesday morning.

        35-year-old Ian Roderiquez was in court to confirm the appointment of his lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Celia Torres.

        Prosecutors also got a protective order to keep Roderiquez from having any contact with his family. They say he faces up to six life sentences if convicted.

        Roderiquez is currently behind bars and being held without bail.

        Check out our crossword, Sudoko and Jumble puzzles >>

        Meantime, gruesome new details have been released in the case.

        According to a police report, Roderiquez beat his wife and children repeatedly with a monkey wrench, forced them to walk on broken glass and threatened to set them on fire during the 11-hour ordeal.

        His eldest son, 16-year-old Richard was beaten so badly he died.

        The incident began at about 10 p.m. on March 22 at Roderiquez’ home in the 6700 block Merito Avenue in the Del Rosa neighborhood of San Bernardino.

        According to police, Roderiquez accused his family of stealing his drugs and then proceeded to attack, beat and torture them for 11 hours.

        "He was a bad man to me," neighbor Jo Ann Castillo told KTLA. "I didn’t like the way he looked, the way he treated his children, the way he spoke with them. He cursed at them. He denied them of things that we know children should have."

        Deputies responded to the home 9:15 a.m. Wednesday after receiving a 911 call from a neighbor reporting a man screaming for help inside the home.

        When deputies arrived, they found Richard laying on the garage floor, underneath a car seat, covered with blood.

        According to the report, Richard had numerous injuries including a possible broken lower leg, numerous cut and stab wounds all over his body and legs, blunt-force trauma to his left hand and multiple skull fractures.

        Roderiquez’ four other children — 13-year-old Jacob, 12-year-old Gabriel, 10-year-old Daniella and 8-year-old Yasmine were found inside the home.

        The children had all suffered blunt force trauma wounds and were taken to the hospital.

        The surviving children told detectives that their father had forced them to walk barefoot on broken glass. Daniella told them she refused to lay down in the glass, prompting her father to pour bleach on her and threaten to set her on fire.

        Roderiquez’ wife, 35-year-old Sujal Roderiquez, suffered several stab wounds from a pair of scissors.

        Roderiquez was arrested on suspicion of murder, attempted murder, torture and child abuse, said Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

        According to neighbors, the father was yelling and cursing in the street earlier in the day.

        One neighbor said that he yelled at the kids frequently.

        "He was a drinker, so he would get in his moods… everybody knew him always yelling at the kids and stuff," Sofia Symeou told KTLA.

        Symeou also said the kids showed signs of desperation.

        "They would go around asking for food from the neighbors, or money, and whenever we gave them something it was like Christmas to them."

        Two of the surviving children are now in protective custody.

        Roderiquez pleaded not guilty to one count of murder, one count of attempted murder, four counts of torture, and four counts of child abuse.

        Any one wishing to help the family can do so by sending a donation to the Memorial Funds for Richard and Family account at 1st Valley Credit Union, 402 2nd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401.

      President Speech at Domestic Violence Awareness Event

      In domestic law on March 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm

      hat tip to stbry

      I found this on the page for Center for Judicial Excellence. What I did not find was more of the same, or in the event the president spoke to those that attended, what comments were made, and what answers were given. It is a fact, we do have to work on the issue, but when president Obama stated, "And as a society, we need to ensure that if a victim of abuse reaches out for help, we are there to lend a hand." It seems the only ones that can lend a hand are those that already have been victims themselves and made it beyond the first several attacks within the court system.

      Not that I object to having pro bono assistance, not like the attorneys will be doing anything for free, that comes with a price too! They are really the problem, they have to sell their trade at a price, and if it means tossing a client out the door, they will do it. I do not believe the president is as naive as he makes us think, for he is an attorney and has been on the front-line attacking position and like others for that simple fact of $.

      "He is helping us to step up our efforts across all the relevant federal agencies." [Joe Biden]. Wasn’t he the one that coined the phrase, Supervised Visitation? How many forget, the road to happiness, is not paved with bodies! Federal agencies? That’s like asking the FBI to investigate the corruption in the family court system..they know it is happening, but fail to investigate?

      "So I want to thank all of you for the work that you do in your respective communities." meaning, I hope the country does not get on board with this one, if we leave it in their perspective communities, we have nothing to defeat, nothing to curtail when it breaks out throughout the country on the truth of the matter. I am not ‘downing’ the endeavors of others, just find that when someone finally listens, they seem to forget that small voice continually asking for more help– when it is finally said and done, nothing really was said, and nothing was done…….

      it was just a glorified list to acknowledge those that cared enough to get something done, if not just a comment, a perspective, a short lecture on the subject, it was just enough to be no more than what it appeared to be- empty promises.



      White House copy:

      Remarks by the President at Domestic Violence Awareness Event

      East Room

      4:25 P.M. EDT


           THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Everybody, please have a seat.  Thank you so much.

           Let me just be clear. Biden’s boss is Dr. Jill Biden.  (Laughter.)  So let there be no confusion about that. 

      I want to begin, obviously, by recognizing my Vice President for the unbelievable leadership that he has shown for more than two decades on this issue — fighting alongside all the advocates who are here today.  (Applause.)  Great work. 

      He started holding hearings on domestic violence back in 1990.  He wrote and gathered the support to pass the Violence Against Women’s Act — a law that has saved countless lives, transformed how we address these all-too-pervasive crimes.  And as Vice President, he hasn’t let up. He is helping us to step up our efforts across all the relevant federal agencies.  So nobody feels more passionately about this than Joe, and I am grateful to him for all of his leadership.  We’re really proud of him.  (Applause.) 

           I also want to thank Valerie Jarrett, my senior advisor and chair of our Council on Women and Girls. Valerie has helped ensure that the issues that we’re talking about today — the concerns of women and girls — are addressed at the highest levels of our government. 

      I want to acknowledge Lynn Rosenthal, the first-ever advisor at the White House — (applause.)  So we’re proud of Lynn.  I guess you know her.  (Laughter.) She’s been calling you up a little bit.  But she’s doing great work helping to advise us on these issues.

      I want to thank Judge Susan Carbon, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.  (Applause.)  We’re proud of what we’re doing here.

      I want to thank my Secretary for Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, who is helping to coordinate our efforts.

           And finally, I want to thank everybody who is here today for the work that you’re doing to stop domestic violence and to help its survivors.  You’ve got champions like Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congresswoman Donna Edwards who have done extraordinary work in Congress.  You’ve got leaders like Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans.  And I think you already heard about some of the interesting work that they’re doing down in that city. 

      There are so many organizations that are represented here today — we are very proud of you and what you do.  I’m thrilled to see Joe Torre, who’s here, who understands this issue personally and deeply, and for him to lend his name to this is extraordinarily important.  And we hope that the Dodgers do better next year.  (Laughter.)  My White Sox aren’t doing so hot, either. (Laughter.) 

           As you all know, domestic violence was for far too long seen as a lesser offense.  As Valerie said, it was frequently treated like a private matter.  Victims were often just sent home from the hospital without intervention; children were left to suffer in silence.  And as a consequence, abuse could go on for years.  In many cases, this violence would only end with the death of a woman or a child.

           And we’ve come an incredibly long way since that time.  We have changed laws.  We’ve made progress in changing the way people think about domestic abuse.  As Joe pointed out, we’ve reduced the incidence of domestic violence.  And we’ve done so in no small part because of the advocacy of your organizations and the willingness of victims to tell their own stories, even when it’s difficult.

           And if there’s one group that I want to thank, am grateful for, it’s people who are willing to tell their stories — because it’s hard.  It’s hard stuff.  When Joe Torre stands up and talks about growing up in an abusive household, about being afraid to come home when he saw his dad’s car parked in the front of the house, and finding a refuge in baseball — that connects in a way that no speech by a politician can connect. 

      As a consequence, he started Safe at Home, a foundation for children going through what he went through, and it’s helping kids all across the country. 

      We’re joined by Lori Stone and Ruth Glenn, both of whom were victims of years of violent abuse in their marriages.  And they’re sharing their stories in the hope that nobody else has to experience the pain and fear that they lived with every day.

           Those stories remind us of how cruel, how menacing domestic violence can be — because it happens at home, the place where you should feel safe.  Because the abuse comes at the hands of the people who are supposed to love you and trust you.  Because escaping domestic violence is not only associated with a great deal of fear but also incredible financial and legal challenges that often leave victims of abuse feeling trapped.

           That’s what we have to change.  And I say that not only as a President, but as a son, as a husband, as the father of two daughters.  Now, we’ve made a great deal of progress in recent years.  But everybody in this room understands that our work is not yet finished.  Not when there’s more we can do to help folks looking to restart their lives and achieve financial independence.  Not when there’s more to do to ensure that the victims of abuse have access to legal protection.  Not when children are trapped in abusive homes — especially when we know the lingering damage and despair that this can cause in a child’s life.  Not when one in every four women experiences domestic violence — and one in six women are sexually assaulted — at some point in their lives.

           It’s not acceptable. And I know that Valerie and Joe spoke about some of our efforts in detail, but I just want to highlight a few key parts of what is a new, coordinated effort to protect victims and break the cycle of abuse.

           We’re helping the victims of violence to overcome the financial barriers they often face getting back on their feet.  And Lori’s experience serves as an example.  Lori had not only — had suffered abuse at the hands of her husband physically, he also destroyed their credit.  And she had to spend her limited savings on legal representation to keep custody of her children.

           So we’re going to start taking steps to connect survivors with jobs, to help them save, to make it easier for them to rebuild their credit, to make sure that no one has to choose between a violent home and no home at all.  (Applause.)

      Secretary Donovan at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is releasing new rules today to prevent the victims of domestic violence from being evicted or denied assisted housing because a crime was committed against them.  That’s not right. And we’re going to put a stop to it.  (Applause.) 

           We’re also doing more to help the victims of domestic violence access legal services and protections. So today, the Justice Department is releasing new tools and best practice to judges, to advocates, to law enforcement to help ensure that protective orders are issued and enforced.  And the Vice President and the Justice Department are launching a new effort to help victims of domestic abuse find lawyers to represent them pro bono.  You heard Joe talk about that. That’s critical.  That’s important.  (Applause.) 

           As the advocates in this room can attest, when a victim of abuse leaves a violent relationship it’s often a particularly vulnerable time.  I know that’s when Ruth Glenn was viciously attacked by her husband.  And there are many stories like this — too many stories.  We need to make sure that we’re doing everything we can for victims in this critical period — to ensure that folks who are seeking help and protection get that help and get that protection.  That’s our responsibility.

           So these are just a few of the steps that we’re taking.  But the bottom line is this:  Nobody in America should live in fear because they are unsafe in their own home — no adult, no child.  And no one who is the victim of abuse should ever feel that they have no way to get out.  We need to make sure every victim of domestic violence knows that they are not alone; that there are resources available to them in their moment of greatest need.  And as a society, we need to ensure that if a victim of abuse reaches out for help, we are there to lend a hand.

           This is not just the job of government.  It’s a job for all of us.  So I want to thank all of you for the work that you do in your respective communities.  And I want you to know that this administration is going to stand with you each and every step of the way.

           So congratulations on your great work.  We’ve got more work to do.  And I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this effort.  Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)


      4:36 P.M. EDT

      Arthur Freeman: Father is a cold blooded murderer of his 4 year old daughter Darcy Freeman whom was thrown from the west gate bridge to her death. video of the murder scene.

      In domestic law on March 29, 2011 at 1:06 am


      Contains Video Footage of Arthur Freeman Murdering 4 year old Darcy throwing her off the bridge After being awarded shared parenting.

      Herald Sun

      Galleries: The death of Darcey Freeman

      252508-darcey-freeman-death 724387-west-gate-bridge-horror 724381-west-gate-bridge-horror 724379-west-gate-bridge-horror 724367-west-gate-bridge-horror 724373-west-gate-bridge-horror (1) 724355-west-gate-bridge-horror 724365-west-gate-bridge-horror 724373-west-gate-bridge-horror

      impropriety? Learn the language….

      In domestic law on March 28, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      Hat tip to Sbry for this!

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

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

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

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

      The following are examples of case law discussing deliberate indifference

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

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

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

      Learn the language……..

      Arthur Freeman: The man behind the monster. A KILLER DAD – Darcy Freeman thrown over the West Gate Bridge

      In domestic law on March 28, 2011 at 2:31 pm

      Arthur Freeman: The man behind the monster

      From:Herald Sun

      Arthur Freeman

      Arthur Freeman outside Supreme Court yesterday. Picture: Ellen Smith Herald Sun

      MAD or bad? The appearance of Arthur Freeman at his murder trial supported either theory.

      His locks, streaked blond, tumbled over the collar of the black suit he wore each day. Strands of hair, as though reaching for the sun, on his otherwise bare crown suggested a close relationship with a power plug.

      His forehead looked to be carved with a hammer and chisel. As Freeman shuffled in each morning, shackles clanking, shoulders hunched, his body resembled a block of concrete, wide and thick. He would be likened to cartoon characters, mad monks and sci-fi aliens.

      Sometimes, Freeman bared his teeth in expressions of pain. He whimpered and wept and guzzled water during evidence about the autopsy of his daughter, Darcey Freeman, the four-year-old he threw off the West Gate Bridge.

      Related Coverage

      Mostly, he stared with wide eyes, like a zoo exhibit who could not grasp how he’d arrived where he was.

      For 35 years, until January 29, 2009, “Ardie” was considered “harmless”. He was an IT geek who had shone as a database administrator in London.

      He played tennis weekly. He kept busy, with bike rides and tinkering, as he always had as a boy. There were beers and skiing trips in a life led, from school onwards, under the radar. Ordinariness was his thing.

      More than anything else, it seems, he wanted more time with his three kids who – for a stretch – he had cared for full-time. He played beach soccer with them. He would take his daughter to ballet. Darcey would seek him out for hugs.

      Then Freeman tossed her off a city landmark – as though posting a letter, according to one of many witnesses. No single act of recent times has haunted us like the "West Gate Bridge girl".

      No one could quite explain how this happened, not then, and not during his trial of the past few weeks. Not even the killer himself who, it was said, had no memory of the incident and who now, to keep busy, tends tomatoes in his prison garden. Apparently, the tomatoes are doing well.

      Freeman’s trial has served to apportion blame. Yet in pleading not guilty – "mad, not bad" as his lawyer called it – Freeman’s case was doomed to skirt elements of context that may have helped explain the inexplicable.

      A trial showdown of medical experts would throw up terms like "dissociative state" and "insane automatism". The jargon did much to bamboozle a lay audience who, nevertheless, were jolted anew each day with the realisation that a little girl who sang and danced wasn’t coming back.

      Much weight was placed on a custody dispute settled the day before Darcey’s death, a resolution Freeman had planned to mark with friends on the following night.

      Instead, that night, he would be trembling and dribbling, pasted in snot and curled in the fetal position, on a police cell floor. Even his parents couldn’t coax a word from him.

      Freeman was there but he wasn’t there at all.

      The court-room theatrics did not settle questions that may never properly be answered.

      Why did Freeman, described by a close relative as "too nice a dad", damn his little girl at one of the busiest places in Melbourne?

      How could he visit such terror upon someone so dear and so trusting? Was Arthur Freeman mad, or bad, or sad – or all of the above?

      The confusing dynamics for Freeman’s trial were set from the first day. Freeman’s defence admitted he had committed a "horror", but argued he wasn’t culpable for it.

      His plea committed a dozen or more ordinary people, who might otherwise have strived to forget their unwitting proximity to the tragedy, to brave the creaky stairs of the witness box.

      The crux of the trial itself – was Freeman mentally impaired, or did his daughter die from his "conscious", "deliberate" and "voluntary" act? – was almost beside the point.

      Throughout, at least for those witnesses who had spoken with Freeman before the event, the process felt spooked with unspoken "what-ifs" that may have spared a little girl who looked a lot like the dad who killed her.

      What if Freeman’s father had driven the three children the day before, as originally planned?

      What if he had convinced Freeman, as he tried, to allow him to accompany them that hot morning?

      What if any of the five adults Freeman spoke to in the hours before Darcey’s death had said something to avert such a tragic course?

      None of these people were to blame, of course. This was not their fault. No one, except perhaps Freeman, had any inkling of the doom ahead.

      Even now, two years later, few of those acquainted with Freeman – especially his own family – appear to have shed the shock.

      The numbness may also apply to the wider community. Media junkies can acquire a thirst for unthinkable atrocities, such as gangland executions. A law of the jungle framework cushions such fascination. Such things don’t happen to us – they happen to them.

      Yet the tale of Darcey Freeman’s doom slipped through the usual filters of distance. Many people say they don’t want to understand. Yet the face of the girl – two weeks shy of five, on her way to her first day of school and one of life’s first big adventures – pops up in the thoughts of thousands of bridge commuters each day.

      Even Justice Paul Coghlan, a man known to keep his reserve, extended touching kindnesses to trial witnesses. "Don’t blame yourself," he told one female witness.

      Freeman’s own father, after finishing his evidence, looked to the judge.

      "You know, I’ve lost my grand-daughter," he said.

      "I’m a grandfather, too," Justice Coghlan replied. "I understand."

      Such glimpses of humanity, as well as tears and gulps, leavened evidence that would repeatedly bathe Supreme Court room 11 in despair.

      As Freeman stared at nothing in particular, his ex-father-in-law, Wayne Barnes, an old-school ex-cop, glared and grimaced and glowered at him. Barnes often looked set to vault the rail that separated them.

      Freeman himself, at times, appeared overwhelmed. He pulled faces that contrasted with the composure of his ex-wife in the witness box, giving evidence about an ex-husband who doomed her daughter to a life unled.

      Freeman’s mouth gaped, as though he was unaware of the movement, when his older son’s video testimony of the event was aired.

      The son’s legs kicked back and forth during the interview. He plainly could not grasp, at the time aged six, the gravity of "Little Darce’s" loss. The poor kid has the rest of his life for that.

      Freeman’s eyes would take on red rims. During an inventory of Darcey’s injuries to the brain, heart, spleen, to the blood in her ears and nose, he scrubbed at his face with a hanky.

      "He’s about to start howling at the ceiling," one observer whispered. It’s said Freeman was at times reluctant to appear in court. Apparently, he stripped in the prison van en route one morning. One night, he was thought to refuse to leave his holding cell.

      Yet the jury would never hear the words that may have softened Freeman’s de facto standing as a monster. They would not hear him say he was sorry.

      The jury members filed in each morning to present as a panorama in grimness. They had been instructed to do the impossible, to get inside the head of an "excessively caring" father who fretted, in his absence, that no one would read his children bed-time stories.

      A father who wanted to be a "huge part" of his children’s lives.

      A father who killed his daughter for reasons that will never make sense and, in doing so, threatened to condemn all three of the fragile souls he helped bring into the world.

      Freeman’s murder trial could never double as an examination of logic. There’s something in particular, too, it did not resolve. Was one death supposed to be three?

      Freeman used plurals in phone threats to his ex-wife minutes before Darcey’s death. "Say goodbye to your children," he said. "You will never see them again."

      Darcey’s older brother offered the only testimony of events in Freeman’s Toyota Landcruiser, driving from Airey’s Inlet to Melbourne that morning.

      The two older children played games in the back seats. There were books and crayons. The two-year-old son drank from a bottle.

      When the 4WD hit the West Gate Bridge, "we stopped". Freeman asked "Darce" to climb into the front seat. Freeman, according to his son, said "please". Then, "everything happened".

      Freeman had been on the phone to his sister during the trip. He made no reference to ghastly thoughts. He instead fretted about the kids’ lunches.

      He also spoke to Elizabeth Lam, noted in court documents as a romantic interest living in London, but named as a "friend" in the court room.

      He told her, she said in teary evidence in the witness box, that he felt his children had been taken away from him.

      Freeman cried during the call. He felt "helpless". He was preoccupied, it seems, with a custody settlement from the day before.

      It seems reasonable to suggest the custody issues had consumed him for many months beforehand.

      In November, 2008, according to a close relative, Freeman said his ex-wife would "regret it" if he lost custody. "That comment has gone through my head over and over," the relative told theHerald Sun this week. "I am not sure then if he intended to do what he has done, but it did suggest that he would make her life hell."

      This tallies with comments, again offered on condition of anonymity, from the mother’s side of the family. Freeman was described as "calculating" and easy to underestimate. Further, he was a "control freak" who lost control after the marriage breakdown.

      Freeman feared, rightly, that the shared care arrangements between the divorced parents – three days’ custody alternated with exchanges at Kew McDonald’s – would be altered. Freeman would now have custody one weekend a fortnight, with a few hours on alternate Thursday nights.
      When he left the Family Court, he "appeared happy", according to his ex-wife. It’s worth noting the decision was a negotiated settlement.
      Yet the next morning, on the phone, Freeman told Lam there had been "lots of angry women in the courts who weren’t very supportive of fathers".
      Even then, perhaps 45 minutes before Darcey’s plunge, he offered no warning of the horror ahead. Freeman spoke about pursuing greater custody through the courts.
      Her phone battery went dead, but Lam didn’t phone back. She assumed Freeman’s crying would help him reconcile his feelings to the reality of his situation.
      "It didn’t even enter my head that he would harm anybody," she said.
      Freeman’s distress at the custody outcome was also described by his father, Peter, in court.
      Freeman had returned to his parents’ home, where the kids had stayed, about midnight the night before. He was "in a bit of a trance". Communication was difficult, but Freeman did express great dissatisfaction with a psychologist’s assessment that figured in the custody resolution.
      Peter Freeman said his son believed he had been "sort of ambushed in the report and that the report was not unbiased".
      He was cut short several times giving evidence, even by his son’s defence counsel. Mr Freeman wanted to read from notes. At one point, it appeared he wanted to query the approach of the psychologist in question, as he, his wife and Freeman’s sister had done in their police statements.
      Her name is Jennifer Neoh. Her assessment of Arthur Freeman, based on interviews held three weeks before Darcey’s death, was summarised in the trial. Freeman "tended to be irrational and contradictory and demonstrated . . . passive/aggressive traits and seemed to cause chaos around him".
      His behaviour on the interview day, firstly turning up late then reappearing before the scheduled appointment itself, distressed the children, Ms Neoh said in court. He hugged and soothed one of his upset children, she said. Yet he seemed oblivious to the chaos he created.
      Freeman disagreed with the report. He thought the assessment unfair. Yet until a few minutes before he threw his daughter off a bridge, he indicated only that he would pursue legitimate channels of review.
      The day before Darcey’s death, after the Family Court resolution, Freeman told a friend he planned to undertake a "personal development course" to counter the psychologist’s conclusions and fight for more time with his children.
      Yet it seems apparent that Freeman’s mental health, from a layman’s perspective anyway, had been patchy since his marriage break-up to Peta Barnes in 2007, perhaps even before.
      Barnes, in court, said her then husband had had mood swings and anger management issues. The mood swings were also described by another family member, who alluded to Freeman’s tendency to drive "erratically" when upset.
      Ms Barnes’ police statement, taken two days after Darcey’s death, went further. She thought, in retrospect, Freeman may have been suffering some form of depression.
      T he pair had married on millennium eve, in Perth, and then lived in Maida Vale, a nicer part of London, for more than six years.
      This pairing, at first anyway, had seemed like a healthy match. He was an introvert. She was an extrovert said to drive him to do things he may not otherwise have done.
      Yet on coming to Melbourne to live, Freeman, Ms Barnes said, showed he was rigid, inflexible, and struggled with change.
      When she left him in March, 2007, she spoke to a Hawthorn GP about her fears.
      There followed an ugly incident. The pair had talked. As Barnes stood to leave, according to her, Freeman grabbed their baby son. She feared he would throw the baby into a fireplace. She bit him. Her mother slammed a metal stroller on his back. The police were called.
      The pair divorced in June, 2008, but Freeman kept wearing his wedding ring. A few months later, he went to England for three months to sort out UK residency issues. He stayed with friends who said in a police statement that he appeared "clearly depressed", "paranoid" and "obsessive".
      It seems, from several unnamed sources, that Freeman feared his ex-wife would return to live in Perth – with the children. He believed renovations were underway to allow that to happen.
      He was also unhappy with the financial split. He fretted he would not have enough money to house the children. Freeman was said to have been frustrated when his then wife, soon after the separation, was said to have suddenly transferred more than $300,000 out of a joint account.
      There is little doubt, rationally or not, that Freeman felt bullied and threatened.
      "I’d say she was the dominant figure," a family member says.
      "Money didn’t mean that much to him. It wasn’t a big agenda at all."
      In London, contact calls with his children got muddled. Freeman felt his ex-wife was sabotaging the contact. He was thrown by suggestions that being overseas while custody issues were in dispute could hinder his access claims.
      When the friends’ three-year-old daughter played up during a museum outing, Freeman restrained the girl, prompting his friend to describe it as "over-reaction". The friend noted that Freeman was shaking.
      Freeman also spent time in London with Elizabeth Lam. He helped care for her children. The pair discussed his marriage breakdown. Freeman was "very bitter" about his wife’s "behaviour towards him".
      Was Freeman unraveling at this time, a few months before Darcey’s death? Other accounts add strength to the theory.
      His father, Peter Freeman, in agreeing in court that his son’s mental health had suffered "severe deterioration" since 2007, felt Freeman had become paranoid. At times, he appeared confused, anxious and teary although Peter Freeman described an improvement that quashed any notion of advising his son to seek professional help.
      Yet a strange disconnect had emerged. Freeman would be obsessive about collecting receipts concerning the children. He had developed systems for feeding and dishes. Yet his Hawthorn flat was a mess of clothes and toys.
      Freeman, according to a close source, had fashioned the children’s beds and drawers, apparently to save money for the custody case. He had gathered washing machines to scavenge parts. He tinkered often, as though embracing a distraction from reality. His parents were always trying to tidy the flat’s spills of clutter.
      Such disorder was what police and journalists discovered in the hours after Darcey’s death. A hand-written note was stuck to Freeman’s television. It’s not plain who wrote it. If it was Freeman, he referred to himself in the third person.
      The note spoke of "keeping a clear head" and having a "big fight on your hands".
      P opular opinion dictates that any parent who kills their child is insane. Such definitions are more technical in courts of law. Actions that qualify for everyday labels, such as "brainsnaps" or "meltdowns", must meet specific psychiatric guidelines to legally classify as "mental impairment".
      Freeman’s murder trial heard references to the M’Naghten trial, which in 1843 codified a presumption of sanity unless the defence could prove otherwise, and "Falconer", a 1990 case when a woman’s conviction for killing her husband was put aside after some psychiatric evidence was disallowed in her original case.
      Freeman’s lawyer, David Brustman, SC, argued his client could not distinguish between right and wrong when he killed Darcey. He was mentally ill at the time.
      Freeman had no psychiatric history (or criminal record) before Darcey’s death. Only one of six psychiatrists to interview Freeman agreed with Mr Brustman’s assertions.
      Professor Graham Burrows likened Freeman’s state to that of a sleep walker on the morning of Darcey’s death.
      He was at the severe end of dissociation – "He really didn’t know what was going on".
      Consultant psychiatrist Yvonne Skinner’s finding was more sinister. She has handled more than 80 cases of parents who kill their children. She concluded that Freeman’s actions fitted what is known as "spousal revenge".
      This theory dictates that the child itself is not the cause of violent rage, but instead a weapon of retribution. Such conclusions serve to reduce the reasons for Darcey’s killing to something akin to collateral damage.
      They also reflect the recent conviction of Robert Farquharson, for the second time, whose three sons drowned when he drove into a dam on Father’s Day in 2005.
      Yet it doesn’t explain why Freeman chose Darcey, as the first or only victim, instead of one of his two sons. The older son reported no acrimony during the car trip.
      One hint, which may or may not be important, may lie in Dr Neoh’s report.
      She specifically mentioned that Darcey was close to her mother in Freeman’s absence, and that her "educational and social needs" were important factors in the custody resolution.
      Five of the six experts agreed that Freeman was probably anxious and stressed during the drive, but not to degrees that constitute a "disease of the mind".
      He was running late for Darcey’s school drop-off. Lunches hadn’t been made, her school shoes were too big, and some of her school uniform was back at Freeman’s flat.
      The build up of tension invites comparisons with the mental unwiring of Michael Douglas’ character in 1993’s Falling Down. Freeman told one doctor he recalled feeling trapped on the bridge. He felt enormous failure that he would not get to St Joseph’s Primary School, in Hawthorn, on time.
      He told another doctor he had no recollection of speaking with his ex-wife, but felt it plausible that she may have called and "berated me for not being there (at school)".
      Professor Burrows said Freeman had been "tipped" by the psychologist’s report prepared for the custody hearing.
      Professor Skinner said Freeman told her he had been "stunned" by the report, which he described as "scathing".
      Yet she argued his ability to drive a car and make phone calls showed he acting consciously and voluntarily.
      The prosecution emphasised that he turned on the 4WD’s hazard lights, as evidence for presence of mind, when he pulled over on the bridge.
      "The sequence of his behaviour demonstrates an awareness of his immediate environment and of a purposeful execution of behaviour . . ." said Dr Douglas Bell.
      Freeman wouldn’t be the first father to be devastated by a Family Court decision.
      Some men feel stripped of their wallets and dignity. Some grow depressed and outraged. Some have been driven by vengeance to unspeakable acts.
      A Family Court judge was once shot dead in NSW. Others have been threatened. Fathers have taken their own lives.
      Only one upset father has tossed his daughter from a bridge soon after a Family Court hearing.
      The least contentious medical point of view, perhaps, was contained in a report by Dr Lester Walton. "Precisely what Mr Freeman may have been thinking or feeling at the material time remains unknown," he said.
      The expert arguments left little scope for popular perceptions. Freeman’s motives were either hopelessly deranged – or entirely evil. The jury went with the latter
      Freeman was considered different from his first day at Newcomb High School in Geelong. No other boy in his year was called Arthur. Tormentors, always alert to a point of difference, exploited the weakness.
      Paul Hogan had created a television character who sported zinc cream, a pot belly and an Esky. Freeman’s label may have been inspired by Hogan’s Arthur Donger. Another theory goes that Freeman used to smell.
      Throughout school, he was called Ardie Dunger. Or Ardie Monster.
      The mockery was not here or there. It was every day. Freeman spent six years at high school being terrorised. Bar the odd exception, he did not fight back.
      When he did, people noticed, prompting the thought – and this from a close friend – that there was a "ticking time bomb" inside the kid who wouldn’t, or couldn’t, express himself.
      "Part of me wonders whether he had mild Asperger’s (Syndrome) or something. He had a deep lack of any emotional intelligence . . . I never can recall him saying, ‘I understand how you feel’ or anything that would suggest or intimate that he did.
      "Maybe if he had seen someone at that age maybe they could have diagnosed him with it."
      Some kids were thrown in bins at Newcomb High School. Some had their jumpers pulled over their heads and got slapped around. Even Ben Graham, the year’s closest thing to a future rock star, was held down in about year 8 and zapped with stove ignitor switches.
      Freeman was bullied in other ways. He was told to stand on a rock in the playground. He would be ordered to stand there indefinitely. When he went to move away, he would be reminded to stay where he was. And he would obey, sometimes for 20 minutes or more.
      Peter Freeman, a father of four, was a teacher at another school.
      There were many troublemakers at school, the sort who fashion ninja stars in metalwork to throw at fellow students. As one student observes, such bullies could scent weakness.
      "You know what kids are like," he says. "They find the odd thing about anyone and they run with it. He copped it for his name, his look, and the way he acted."
      School year books portray a Newcomb High fraternity that celebrated sporting and science successes, with satire and without pretence. Of 88 students in Freeman’s year, 22 went to university.
      Biology did not present Ben Graham, the budding Geelong footballer, with the gift of height until year 9. Graham and Freeman would go to the same university, connected by a mutually close friend, yet their diverging paths speak to life’s unknowable squiggles. Less than a week after Freeman threw his daughter from a bridge, Graham played in an NFL Superbowl.
      There’s something more that may place Freeman’s childhood in the equation. It’s only rumour, but it draws a faint arc in grasping the incomprehensible.
      It’s believed Freeman himself, since he killed his daughter, has traced adult issues to a childhood that included a spell at a primary school for kids with behavioural problems.
      Part of his problem, perhaps – and this is from a close friend – was that Freeman had "zero people skills". Freeman mumbled when he spoke, which wasn’t often. No one can recall any flirtations with girls who would not risk "reputational damage" by consorting with him.
      It is suggested that later, when others had trekked paths of romantic exploration, Freeman remained unrounded in matters of emotional attachment.
      When boys clustered in groups, Freeman would lurk at the edges of this or that gathering, never offering conversation that would open entry to a group. He was there, but he wasn’t.
      He played football for a time and did weights.
      Freeman would go on the annual school bike rides to Albury or elsewhere. Among a "power group" of boys, they would surge ahead on 100km day rides to arrive at their destination well before the pack.
      He would "have a go at anything" says one peer, a trait later attributed to Darcey, who tried tennis and football.
      Acceptance wouldn’t be found until university, when Freeman discovered alcohol and found two friends who, 15 years later, would be compelled to testify against him.
      Freeman tinkered with Ford escorts, to prepare them for Autocross racing. His first car was a yellow Escort, many of its panels dinted and repaired. He would stay up until 5am on PlayStation, nap, then head to work at 8am. Later, when he met his future wife, Ardie would start to be instead called Artie.
      By the time Freeman had qualified with a computer science honours degree, he had lost his hair at the crown of his head. He wore it then as he has at his murder trial – hanging long, looking weird. While married, his hair was short and neat. Visiting relatives were shocked to see his peculiar new hairstyle just before the trial began in early March.
      One insight into Freeman’s formative thinking may lie in a poem he wrote in 1986, aged about 12. It was considered good enough to publish in the school yearbook.
      Called "Feelings", Freeman described fear as "when you’re in a maze with a tiger behind you".
      You run for your life
      Then the tiger jumps you
      The poem’s second stanza took on Dr Seuss cadences. The last four lines would acquire a weird prescience after Darcey’s death.
      A forensic psychologist, on recently reading the poem, wrongly assumed that Freeman had been raised from a broken home.
      It was written by a boy who later, as a man and a father, is said to have tried to write letters to his sons from jail.
      But here comes your dad
      So now you’re gald [glad] that you have a dad
      Then he goes so you’re angry and mad
      But you still love your dad
      It may be tempting for his former school peers to write off Freeman as an aberration of nature. Almost every one appears to have done so. His single act defines him.
      It hardly matters whether a court of law found Freeman insane or not. He didn’t just condemn his daughter and ex-wife. His own family is burdened with a grief – and stigma – that may not fade. The Freemans didn’t lose one family member. They lost as many as four.
      One school peer, whose impressions were supported by others, spoke at great length to the Herald Sun. He was in Freeman’s grades several times, and liked him well enough to request a Facebook friendship years later, a few months before Darcey died (the offer wasn’t taken up).
      "He was like a Martin Bryant type," the peer says.
      "That look. He’d get that stare. Bloody Oath, it was scary. It was when he got bullied a bit and had had too much. But at the end of the day he was a likeable sort of fellow. They picked on him because he was harmless. But everyone knew he had that ability, that something inside him that could explode at any time.’
      Newcomb High alumni hit Facebook to describe their shock and disgust at Freeman. One Facebook site sought members who wanted Freeman killed.
      Yet for those who knew Freeman, Darcey’s death presented a conundrum. A close acquaintance wrote of twisted loyalties.
      "I’m torn with my feelings," she wrote. "One part of me is angry and wants justice for Darcey and another part of me feels for Ardy who is a friend in need. The conflicting feelings are like a storm churning inside. Which should rate, my head or my heart? The more I hear, the more confused I get."
      Two years later, Freeman’s high school peer keeps calling Darcey’s death an "accident", and keeps correcting himself. Finally, he settles on "incident".
      He is sitting in a Geelong pub, nursing a beer. Rock music plays. Punters study the form for the next at Sale.
      His mind veers off, to a cloudless morning and a metal railing where traffic has jammed and the city below, forever grey, is about to shimmer in a blast of heat and incomprehension.
      Darcey’s final glimpses of life. Her panic? Her confusion? Such reflections mash the hardest heart. He has linked Freeman’s deed to his own children. He wants to shake and cry.
      "This c—,’ he says, "threw his kid over the West Gate Bridge. "And for what?"
      Freeman’s closer friend, too, pondered death penalties when, a few hours after Darcey fell 58m, he heard a radio report as he drove over the bridge.
      Like all close observers, he feels a jolt of fresh shock each day, as though she died just this morning. Like all close observers, he anguishes over a simple question – what if?
      For him, the question goes: What if their friendship had been rekindled?
      This friend has also wondered whether he should visit Freeman in prison. He is uncertain if he would ask about Darcey’s death. Sometimes he wants to understand; other times, he does not.
      Such curiosity may be moot. As far as the Herald Sun knows, Freeman talks tomatoes, but does not talk about his daughter’s death.
      The old friend still cannot absorb Freeman’s deed. No one can, especially those at Freeman’s murder trial who concluded that the more they knew, the more they didn’t know at all.
      Yet the friend is a man of faith. He believes that where there is justice, and justice must be served, there must also be mercy.

      Punish the Children if They Refuse to Go With the Abuser

      In domestic law on March 28, 2011 at 1:43 pm


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

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


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

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

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

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

      Judge Tells Mom: Punish Kids For Skipping Visits With Dad

      by Melissa Kossler Dutton

      Oct 1st 2009 4:08PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      In domestic law on March 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm

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


      %d bloggers like this: