The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Archive for July, 2012|Monthly archive page

12 years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer and Criminal HAL RICHARDSON, Topeka, KS Case No. 96-D-217

In domestic law on July 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm


Topeka, Kansas Case No. 96-D-217 Third Judicial District, Shawnee County, Kansas



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


Claudine & Rikki Dombrowski– before Family Court Mafia gave custody to the Abuser–moon shadow

HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ALL ABUSERS and ENABLERS (aka child traffickers) that have and are continuing the  abuse by Hal Richardson. With the help of the local Court Whores, M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Judge David Debenham, Don and Jason Hoffman

Twelve years ago today Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to a convicted batterer on a ‘snail mail’  from crooked Judge Richard Anderson. He made a ‘deal’ and without motion from either party, without hearing he simply on his own ‘switched custody’ from Mother to ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON.

Mother Claudine Dombrowski has had little to no contact with her daughter since this illegal ‘action’ and ruling was made. The Judges following after this decision could have at anytime corrected a very wrong very unethical very damaging ruling.

Instead, they continued ‘litigation abuse’ of a battered mother and forced her only child- HER daughter to live with out her mother and in constant fear.

View this document on Scribd

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





96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

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

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson…

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR…

3 p.

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

Bias Against Abused Mothers in Child Custody Cases: Report New study finds systemic problems in parental capacity assessments discriminate against women.

In domestic law on July 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm


New study finds systemic problems in parental capacity assessments discriminate against women.

Mother holding child

Increasingly, women who claim spousal abuse are labeled ‘alienating’. Photo: Shutterstock .

When a woman flees an abusive relationship, we expect the justice system will protect her and her children.

But a new report finds in some British Columbian child custody cases allegations of spousal abuse are used to paint the mother as mentally ill or an "alienating" parent, and instead recommend visitation, or even custody, for the abusive parent.

"Troubling Assessments: Custody and Access Reports and their Equality Implications for BC Women " is a new report released today by West Coast LEAF, a women’s legal education and advocacy organization. The report looks at what are known under the Family Relations Act as Section 15 reports: parental capacity assessments conducted during child custody and access cases.

Often a useful tool for getting a third-party, outsider’s view of parenting abilities, the report found they could also be biased against and dangerous for vulnerable women with abusive ex-partners.

While there are specific guidelines to follow for family counsellors and social workers regarding family violence and the use of these reports, psychologists in B.C. have no such criteria. In addition, judges often take assessors’ advice at face value, and limited access to legal aid in B.C. prevents many women from challenging assessments they view as biased.

"West Coast LEAF believes that women’s equality is not served by the regime governing custody and access reports as it currently stands," reads the report.

"A rights-respecting system of family law — one that promotes best outcomes for children and families — must invest in women’s equality. Addressing these concerns and implementing reforms will bring us one step closer to this critical goal."

‘Alienating mothers’

Women have been contacting West Coast LEAF for years hoping they could help them with bad Section 15 reports. In the last two years the organization began researching the issue.

They interviewed judges, lawyers, psychologists and social workers, and held forums with women who’ve undergone Section 15 assessments as part of their own child custody battles. The result is this report.

The report doesn’t deal in numbers — either the number of women affected by bad assessments or the cost of the changes to the family law system they request. But Kasari Govender, West Coast LEAF executive director, said the issue isn’t the numbers but the fact the assessments are so easily misused.

"The key is the systemic concerns we have: the lack of training for some assessors on the dynamics of violence, specifically violence against women and violence within intimate relationships, (and) cultural diversity and judging parental ability across cultural divides and the problems that can arise there."

Assessments are often used at the request of one parent in the hopes of discrediting the other, although judges often request them too. In British Columbia there are no common accepted guidelines or professional qualifications for conducting these assessments. However BC Supreme Court usually requires a psychologist conduct the assessments, while the lower courts use family justice counsellors.

Family justice counsellors and social workers must adhere to specific professional guidelines for completing Section 15 assessments, including taking family violence into account. But there are no such guidelines or specifications for psychologists.

Allan Wade, a therapist and internationally renowned expert on inter-personal violence, said he’s seen a range of Section 15 assessments, from the very good to very bad.

"I’ve seen a number of cases over the years where the reports are so prejudiced and so incompetent that they’re extremely harmful," he told The Tyee.

For example, Wade said he’s seeing an increase in assessors labelling mothers who allege spousal abuse as "alienating."

"There are women in B.C. who want to report abuse to the authorities who are told by their lawyers ‘Don’t report the abuse. If you do, you’ll lose your kids,’ because they’ll be called alienating mothers," said Wade, who is quoted in the West Coast LEAF report.

While some reports show their biases — one example given to The Tyee was an assessor who continually makes negative remarks about parents who live in subsidized housing — Wade said the bigger issue is the use of psychological personality tests for parents and children.

For example, when tests such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) are given to people under chronic stress, like victims of abuse or individuals in chronic pain, Wade said research has shown results are skewed.

"Unless the person giving the test understands that and accounts for that in their interpretation, they’re at risk of wrongly attributing a mental illness to the victim, and I’ve seen that happen in a number of cases," he said.

"Many of the assessment devices that are used routinely in psychology are not particularly suited to addressing problems with violence."

Lost in translation

Psychological tests and Section 15 assessments also discriminate against women from different cultural backgrounds or for whom English is not their first language. The report found some psychologists refuse to offer psychological tests in languages other than English over fears it would skew the results. Translators are sometimes used instead to translate the questions and answers for the women.

The report alleges mothers have been judged harshly for their differing parenting styles, citing a mother who read her daughter stories in Farsi, and a South-Asian mother who couldn’t afford a two-bedroom apartment, so she shared a bed with her young child. Normal practices in their home country, but used to paint them as bad parents in Canada.

There is little recourse for women who don’t want to be assessed or want to challenge an assessment. Wade said informed consent is the right of parents, male or female, who are subject to a parental capacity assessment. But that right isn’t recognized in B.C.

"In one case a woman consulted me because she was having a Section 15 report done, and she wanted to know what she should know in advance," he recalled.

"(I) provided her with a list of questions and she tried to ask the professional, and the person said ‘Look, I don’t have to answer your questions, I have a court order.’ Then she had every reason to believe she wouldn’t be safe because of the professional presentation of the (assessor)."

Access to lawyers to challenge assessments can also be difficult. In B.C. a single mother with one child must make less than $2,050 per month to qualify for legal aid. But a salary of $25,000 doesn’t leave enough discretionary spending to hire a lawyer to fight the report, either. Thus the report calls for increases to the limits for legal aid, too.

But it shouldn’t just be up to lawyers to fight against individual reports, said forensic social worker Tracey Young, who is also quoted in the report. There should be province-wide oversight of reports to ensure parents — both male and female — are treated fairly by these assessments.

"There really is nobody monitoring or keeping track of this," said Young, who worked in child welfare from 2002 to 2009.

"I think that was one of the really important parts that came out of the report, is I think that there’s not consistency across the board, there’s no set of practice guidelines for whichever clinicians are doing this."

Psychologists underrepresented in report

While West Coast LEAF maintains the report is meant to highlight problems with the justice system overall, there is plenty of criticism for the lack of guidelines for psychologists. Although they sent out questionnaires to 15 psychologists randomly selected from the B.C. Psychological Association’s website, only three responded.

Attempts to reach the B.C. College of Psychologists were difficult, too, with both sides saying miscommunication led to the college not participating in the report. The report’s release was subsequently delayed by one week to provide the college time to review the findings.

But in a statement emailed to The Tyee, a spokesperson for the college said ultimately the two organizations respectfully agreed to disagree on the findings.

"The report does not comprehensively examine the existing nature and the quality of the education and training required of registered psychologists in British Columbia, the professional standards relevant to the preparation of Section 15 reports by registered psychologists, and the accessibility and efficacy of the College complaints process," read the statement.

"In addition, while the report provides insight into the experiences of some participants in custody and access proceedings, it does not provide a systematic analysis of the issues raised."

Both parties have agreed to keep lines of communication open and vowed to continue working on solving the issues outlined in the report.

In the meantime, the days of the Family Relations Act are numbered. With the new Family Law Act replacing the previous legislation over the next six months to a year, it’s an ideal time to make changes to the laws surrounding parental assessments.

The new section outlining rules for parental capacity assessments, Section 211, isn’t much different than Section 15. But there’s still time to make changes, and in an emailed statement to The Tyee, B.C. Attorney General Shirley Bond said she would take the report’s recommendations into consideration.

"As with any report that we receive, we will take the time to review their findings," read the statement.

"We will take the report’s recommendations under consideration as we move forward with implementation of the new Family Law Act."

Govender is hopeful government will adopt the report’s recommendations regardless of the time or financial costs to government.

"I think it’s really significant not to get caught up in looking at changes in family law in only the short-term costs, because we know that where better outcomes happen for children and for families, that that will ultimately save the system significant amounts of money," says Govender.

KS: Child Custody Case Managers, ONE of the Most Scrutinized in the Judiciary – Appointed to "high-conflict" divorces – KS Legislature and KS Court of Appeals, taking steps to ‘Rein In’ the “Quasi-Judicial” RENEGADE appointees

In domestic law on July 13, 2012 at 10:43 am

Excellent article by Andy Marso and the Topeka capital Journal. You have to go to the article and read the comments.

Family Court The Real Weapon of Mass Destruction

Courts working on guidelines for case managers


“mediation and other alternative dispute resolution in the Kansas court system says it will seek public comment soon on new guidelines for child custody case managers, who are fast becoming one of the most scrutinized aspects of the judiciary.”

“public comments on case management could be solicited as soon as this summer and the comment period should last months”

“followed by appellate court decisions in back-to-back weeks that slapped the Douglas County district court for abdicating too much of its authority in custody cases to the case manager.”

“Two weeks ago, the appellate court found that Karen Williams was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on the district court’s decision to reverse custody of her daughter — a decision that was made solely on the recommendation of case manager Cheryl Powers.”

“The latest appellate decision, released Friday, established that father Matthew Merrill had the right to object to all recommendations of his case manager, Patrick Nichols, and that the judge should review those objections before implementing the recommendations.”

“Bud Dale, a Topeka-based lawyer and case manager, agreed, and said he also thought the appellate judges went too far in limiting case management fees.”

“Dale objected to the judges’ ruling that Nichols shouldn’t have been able to bill Merrill for the time Nichols spent defending himself against motions to remove him as case manager. Instead, the court wrote that case managers are only authorized to asses fees to the parties for work related to “custody, residency or visitation or parenting time issues.”

“(The court) muddied some waters here,” Dale said. “I’m not in indentured service to the court. I’m not working for nothing.”

“In the Merrill case, the appellate court also found Nichols was inappropriately influenced by the parties’ unwillingness to pay him and the district judge erred in accepting Nichols’ request that his recommendations be immediately implemented as court orders”

Read rest of article here:

My comment:

Blood for Profit – Just US, no one else. After 18 years of hell in Shawnee County Courts, Case management, GAL’s, parent coordinators and other 3rd party ‘access to justice interferer’s’, have shown their true agenda – theirs –

and the commenter’ s here are ‘on to them’ and the whole ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ – b.s. w 2 degrees. Dr. Bud Dale, JD. Your ‘gravy train’ (and all the others) is finally at stake.

Awesome job to cj and Andy Marso, more than awesome job that after all these years I finally see the people – we the people – outraged! I have waited almost two decades for the truth to finally burst out. Thank you Topeka.

LAW is LAW – psych is theory, ideas, opinion. Not fact. There is absolutely no place in a Court of Law for any ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ – Self (financially) ‘made-up’ positions that amount to ‘crystal ball’ reading’s. Take it on the road w the carnival. Entertainment [bad entertainment] is better than the damage caused by your so called JUDGE/GOD idea, opinions and your beliefs. People divorce for a reason – stupidity, danger and insanity in forcing them into polar situations for financial gain is inhumane.

Dr. Bud Dale states …

….”(The court) muddied some waters here,” Dale said. “I’m not in indentured service to the court. I’m not working for nothing.”

Indentured slave? Case managers and other www.WhoresOfTheCourt.comhave no problem ‘enslaving’ families for personal profit… get out Bud.

Reevaluating the Evaluators: Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts

Bud Dale Does Case Management:

“Teaching Battered Mother to NOT complain about abuse, if she ever wanted to see her child again.’’ Mother never did see her child, she was never allowed to mother her daughter and a little girl denied her mother – 15 years later– still no more than strangers, thanks KS Case Mangers, Courts and Bud Dale. $$ –
You murdered innocence, you rewarded violence — An entire generation sent to slaughter for your personal $$ gain.

See Kansas case leads Petition To Inter American Commission On Human Rights
Yes, that’s me, just another ‘high conflict’ case that case managers made careers out of.

–Dr. Dale Case Manager Report to Court in the Claudine Dombrowski Case;

“…..forcing a battered mother to not complain about sexual and physical abuse – it’s confrontational, and if mommy wants to see child again……then mommy will do as told.”

Karma baby. The ultimate justice. And they all came tumbling down….

KS Appeals Court: ‘Mother entitled to full custody hearing’ – After Case Manager reverses Child Custody from Mother to Father…..Ya think? Really? In a Court of Law? Damn this just gets more and more interesting all the time……

In domestic law on July 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm

“The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.”



I cried when I heard the news below, for many reasons.


1. I always think of my daughter Rikki, had this been law would it have changed what happened to her and I? For 6 years we fought for a hearing after a now JUDGE, LLOYD C. SWARTZ (had been case manager) severed all contact between this mother and her child. It was not until 2010 that there was finally a hearing on it – SIX years later, although for 6 years this mother wrote motion after motion for hearing….. judge after judge it went through, never to be heard, never any of the basic fundamental rights of ‘due process’…..

And; when that hearing did finally come, the GAL (M. Jill Dykes) with the court appointed ‘psychs’ (David C. Rodeheffer) had taken over where the case manager (Lloyd C. Swartz) had left off….

Justice still remained denied, mother and daughter remained without contact as the abuser father (Hal Richardson) maintained complete control.

2. Even though, there will now be ‘hearings’ on the perversion of    justice – (where again – none should be) – the ‘house of gold’ has become brighter by other profiteers such as BUD DALE – GAL’s and other third party access to justice interferers.

I cry. Nothing has changed except for the Increase in profits from the other child traffickers.

There will only be Justice – when Justice is allowed. There can never be justice, when Therapeutic Jurisprudence is allowed.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Trial Within a Trial


The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.


KS Appeals Court: Mother entitled to full custody hearing. Lower court had reversed custody on case manager’s recommendation


The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a mother who lost residential custody of her child based on a case manager’s recommendation is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing.

Karen Williams, formerly Karen Wray, became an outspoken proponent of the need to reform the state’s child custody case management system after the lower court limited her to once-a-week visits with her daughter without giving Williams an opportunity to hear and respond to the case manager’s recommendation.

In a decision written by Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, the three appeals judges noted that the laws establishing case management do not explicitly require a hearing on case manager recommendations, but parents have a right to due process under the 14th Amendment when a fundamental liberty like the custody of their children is at stake.

"Although this holding may result in courts having busier dockets," the decision states, "the information received at such a hearing will aid the courts in deciding whether the case manager’s recommendations are in the best interests of the child and insure that due process, one of the most sacred and essential constitutional guarantees, is provided to the parties."

The three appeals court judges found that case manager recommendations that change legal custody or residential custody, or significantly change parenting time warrant a full hearing if they are contested.

"The court of appeals nailed it," said Bud Dale a Topeka lawyer and case manager who submitted an amicus brief in the case. "In terms of the clarifications needed in the law to function as a case manager, the court of appeals decision was perfect."

The judges sent Williams’ case back to the Douglas County court where it originated for a full hearing.

Williams called the decision "such a relief," though she said she was disappointed the appeals court did not grant her request to remove the case manager and district court judge who appointed her. Williams may face the same judge when she has her hearing in Douglas County, but she said she’s confident she can regain residential custody of her daughter.

"I know that once we’re allowed to present evidence, there’s no way you can look at this and say that what has happened is righteous and fair," Williams said. "That’s what I wanted is to be given the opportunity to present it and they’re giving us that opportunity."

The Legislature authorized the judicial branch to appoint case managers to negotiate visitation in "high-conflict" divorces a little more than a decade ago. Since then, parents and lawyers have expressed concern that case managers have broad authority and little accountability.

Ron Nelson, a Lenexa family law attorney who represented one of the parties in a similar case that went to the appeals court in 2000, called Friday’s ruling "a very good decision." Nelson said it goes farther than any previous ruling in establishing that the court is the final authority on child custody changes, not the court-appointed case manager.

"This decision certainly pulls back from what seemed to be the way that case management approvals were going," Nelson said. "Which was that they were rubber-stamped, either in a hearing or out of a hearing."

Williams says that’s what happened in her case.

Williams’ daughter was born in 2001, and she filed for divorce from the girl’s father a year later. The two retained joint legal custody, but Williams had residential custody and her ex-husband had weekly visits. That arrangement held until February 2011, when Williams told the case manager, Cheryl Powers, that she was remarrying and moving to Marion.

In response, Powers recommended that the court reverse the custody arrangement. According to the court decision, Powers believed Williams had a history of alienating her daughter from the child’s father and "this alienation would only increase if she were allowed to move away with the child."

Within a month, the court adopted Powers’ recommendation and denied Williams’ request for a full hearing. The court also ignored Williams’ request that it remove Powers as case manager and appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.

That led Williams to appeal to the higher court, which was unusually caustic in its evaluation of Powers’ response to Williams’ request for her removal.

"The tone and content of Powers’ subsequent response to Wray’s objection can hardly be described as a professional report from a neutral factfinder or facilitator," the judges wrote.

"You don’t see that kind of language very often," Nelson said. "Saying it’s essentially an unprofessional recommendation and reaction is kind of strong language."

The Legislature moved to address some of the concerns about case managers last session by requiring they hold a professional license. But legislators decided to wait and see how the court would rule in Williams’ case before taking further action.

Dale said he will propose a minor procedural fix next session, but the court addressed most of his concerns. Nelson said there’s still work for legislators to do.

"This (decision) certainly helps and provides some solace that case management is not quite the railroading it’s been perceived to be," Nelson said. "But there still needs to be more standards and more direction from the Legislature than this opinion really gives."

%d bloggers like this: