"RULE OF LAW" vs."RULE OF MAN" – Therapeutic Jurisprudence e.g. Case Managers, Parenting Coordinators, Custody Evaluations, ADR, Mediators, Lawless Family Court

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

 

"RULE OF LAW" vs."RULE OF MAN"

A common theme underlying nearly all the problems in the family courts is the sloppy float away from the "rule of law" to "rule of man".

 

The "rule of man" describes such things as dictatorships,decision-making by whim, discretion without oversight, vague standards that cannot predictably be anticipated or applied, faux-expert recommendation-making and opining such as with mental health professional parenting evaluations, and the panoply of therapeutic jurisprudence interventions such as parenting coordination and special mastering. All of these abrogate due process, and the fundamental principles on which our system of jurisprudence was founded. The ideas have been pushed by the mental health lobbies and by individuals who either don’t understand or don’t care about some higher priorities.

"Rule of man" is a concept that we ditched with the formation of this country in favor of "rule of law". Our founding fathers recognized that there is no way to regulate or oversee individuals given too much discretion or dictatorial authority. With regard to the family courts, I keep hearing and reading what are essentially inane pleas to fix the various misguided ADR programs via "guidelines" (aspirational only, and with immunity from sanction for misfeasance), and for "trainings", and for getting rid of those who are "incompetent" — all of which suggestions exhibit an astonishing lack of appreciation for the stupidity inherent in these extra-judicial ideas — ideas which Thomas Paine and our founding fathers would have abhorred (see, e.g. Common Sense).

Dictatorship cannot be permitted not because there couldn’t (theoretically) be some wise and beneficent dictators who would be better and more efficient than the messy system of due process and checks and balances we idealize, but because under that dictatorial system we inevitably and primarily will suffer the fools, the tyrants, and the corrupt. And that’s without addressing the panoply of other constitutional defects. Besides, no scientifically sound research actually establishes "harm" from the adversarial system — or benefit to families’ well-being from applied therapeutic jurisprudence. These ideas were invented in mental health trade promotion groups as lobbying talking points. (If you doubt this, feel free to contact me for more information.) Yikes. What are we doing. To the extent we’ve been sold a bill of goods, swampland, snake oil and the voo doo of "expertise" by the mental health professions, at least until relatively recently, the stuff wasn’t harming our legal system. Now it is. Wake up, and wise up.

What we do need are some realistic changes in the substantive laws addressing divorce and child custody. What we don’t need is a revolution in procedural rules and the overthrowing of individuals’ constitutional rights.

 

———————————————————-

 

PSYCHOLOGY; CUSTODY EVALUATIONS; THERAPY Forensic Psychology; Case Managers, Guardians ad Litem; Therapeutic Jurisprudence

        

The sociological and psychological research on families and child well-being impacts public policy  and the issues of child custody in family law. The research frequently is misrepresented, and mis-cited by mental health professionals, lawyers, forensic psychologists and others, as well as interest groups lobbying for laws. Also review the sections pertaining to the issues impacted by the "therapeutic jurisprudence", such as child custody, parental alienation theory, research pertaining to child development, the subsection for research Myths and Facts in FAMILY LAW, and other family law issues. Also see the subsection on Child Custody in FAMILY LAW.

Therapeutic jurisprudence in the family courts, i.e. a "mental health approach to the law" substitutes the opinions of mental health practitioners for traditional evidence and decision-making procedures. Because these persons actually do not have any kind of "expertise" to opine this way, what originally was thought to be a helpful idea (in this medicalized and psychologized world) has become merely economic opportunism, harming not only the litigants and children in the system as well as the court system itself, but also perverting substantive and procedural law.

It is not science, but compensated yenta-ism that has permeated the courts under the pretexts that engineering family affectional relationships is within the ability of mental health "science" practitioners to accomplish, and that this is an appropriate goal of the government, court system, and state police power because children "need" something it has to offer.

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/

 

Meet The New Boss…Same As The Old Boss

Women tired of being ignored by our President are banding together to bring awareness to the fully funded genocide that is currently raging through America. Pres. Obama has allocated $500 Million in Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives which help abusers gain access and/or custody to children. In 2010. 175 abusive fathers killed their children http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2011/02/175-killer-dads-fathers-who-ended-t… fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USA)

We are not going to give up, shut up or go away…we are going to get LOUDER!
Disclaimer: I voted for Barack Obama and had every faith in him, We have tirelessly attempted to bring awareness to him about the issues with women in family court and domestic violence. This video intent is to enlighten others on the subject that we women will not get fooled again. We demand that our president stop ignoring our pleas and take action as we can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. The politicians that are currently waging a war on women we have taken notice of and will not be fooled again.

Gender Bias or Mother Nature??

 

Shawnee County, Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse of Battered Mother

Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake
Manhattan Free Press

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.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child’s coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson’s wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child’s coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can’t be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal’s report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."

Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."

And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."
Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitude changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor’s reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."

When asked about Mr. Richardson’s criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women’s Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.
In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible.

Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties.”

The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.
And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receives help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele’s previous orders.

Even the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals- Over 58,000 Children are Court Ordered to live with Abusers and Pedophiles

posted by AMPP

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

In a Conservative Estimate — OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser. This is more than twice the amount of childhood cancer.

Posted with permissions from: Montana Public Radio, KUFM, which ran on their news broadcast 10-5-2010.

Interview with Assistant News Director Edward O’Brien and Kathleen Russell of the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org about the cottage industry of Guardian Ad Litems aka GAL’s and the much needed State to State Reforms to pull their Immunity from accountability and prosecution for sending children to live with abusers in Disputed Child Custody Cases.

Remember that therapeutic jurisprudence COSTS money, and prolongs litigation. It costs nothing to abrogate their immunity and/or to get rid of them. See, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Listen Now:  The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals – Legislative Reforms Needed

OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser.

Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President

tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg

According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.

Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.

How We Obtained This Estimate:

No one knows the exact number of children who are left in the unprotected care of an abusive parent following their parents’ divorce. The Leadership Council has studied the problem and using the best available research has attempted to come up with a conservative estimate of the problem. We estimate that each year, 58,500 minor children are placed at risk for injury because the courts ordered them into the unsupervised care of a violent parent.

The estimate is meant to be conservative and was obtained using the figures in the following table. The research that we used to obtain these figures is explained in more depth in the following section.

Number of children affected by divorce each year	1,000,000
Number of families with allegations of child abuse and/or severe domestic violence (13%)	x.13
	=130,000 cases
When investigated, percentage of cases found to be valid or suspected to be valid. (Research suggests that the number is between 43 and 73%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 70%. To be conservative we will use 60%)	X .60
	=78,000
Percentage of children left unprotected. (Research suggests that the number is between 56-90%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 90%. A conservative estimate is 75%)	X .75
Estimate of children in the U.S. who are left in the unprotected care of an abuser after their parents’ divorce	=58,500

The research:

Estimates suggest that between 1 and 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year — ultimately 40% of all children are affected by divorce.1,2,3

It is difficult to determine the number of divorcing families affected by violence. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland analyzed an extensive dataset, which consists of a random sampling of all divorce and custody cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0%).4

This is likely an underestimate as court records often fail to note domestic violence5 and other studies have shown higher rates. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, found documentedevidence of domestic violence in 24%-55% of custody court records depending on the state.6

In addition, studies suggest that in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, there is often a history of violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation. In many cases, the violence involves severe battering and/or the use of weapons.7

To be conservative we will go with 13%. So how many of these allegations are likely to be valid. Research suggests when allegations of child abuse are investigated, approximately 50-73% are found to be valid.8

However, when courts get involved in determining custody, children are rarely protected from the violent parent. In at least 75% of cases the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser. (Research has found results ranging from 56-90%; a conservative estimate is 75%).9

So how many children whose parents divorce are left in the unprotected care of an abuser each year in the United States ? Thus a conservative estimate based on available research is that approximately 58,500 are left at risk of physical and psychological injury after being ordered into the unsupervised care of an abuser after their parents divorce. This number includes both those who are left in the sole care of an abuser and those who are required to have unsupervised visits.

Compare this to the number of cases of childhood cancer per year. In 2004 the incidence rate of newly diagnosed childhood cancers in the U.S. was 22,586.10

Most people who divorce do so early in their marriage,.3 and children who are court-ordered into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, an abuser will be at risk of abuse until they reach adulthood. Consequently, at any point in time it is likely that a half a million children are left unprotected from a violent parent after their parents’ divorce.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Divorce – Helping Children Adjust.http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C⊂_cat=0
(“Every year, more than one million children in the United States experience the divorce of their parents.”)

2. National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002, October 15). Preventive Sessions After Divorce Protect Children into Teens.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2002/preventive-sessions-after-divorce-protect-children-into-teens.shtml
(“About 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year—ultimately 40 percent of all children.”)

3. Shiono, P. H., & Quinn, L. S. (1994, Spring). Epidemiology of Divorce.Future of Children, 4 (1). Available athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART2.pdf
(Each year since the mid-1970s, more than 1 million children have experienced a family divorce.”)

4. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland. (2004). Custody and financial distribution in Maryland: An empirical study of custody and divorce cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Towson, MD.
http://www.wlcmd.org/pdf/CustodyFinancialDistributionInMD.pdf
(“Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0 percent). Of these, 169 allegations were made by women and 36 by men.”)

5. Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11 (8), 991-1021.
(Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle , studied divorce cases and found that in 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history of domestic violence, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files. Similarly the National Center for State Courts that a screening process [utilized by the mediation program] revealed a much higher incidence of domestic violence than a review of court records alone would have indicated [see ref 6 below]).

6. Susan Keilitz et al, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers , prepared for the National Center for State Courts; State Justice Institute,” NCSC Publication Number R- 202, p. 5.

7. Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-Conflict Divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182, p. 167.

8. Research used in substantiation estimate:

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1997). Problems and solutions in the management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes in the family court. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(4), 431-443.
(Researchers reviewed court records of some 200 families where child abuse allegations had been made in custody and access disputes in jurisdictions in two states, observed court proceedings and interviewed court and related services’ staff.The allegations of abuse were usually valid. 70% were determined to involve severe physical and/or sexual abuse. The overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations in noncustody related investigations.)

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4 (4), 1-25.
(Researchers examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely; 20% unlikely; and 7.4% uncertain. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.)

Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151-63.
(Researchers examined court records in 9,000 families in custody/visitation disputes. In the 129 cases for which a determination of the validity of the allegation was available, 50% were found to involve abuse , 33% were found to involve no abuse, and 17% resulted in an indeterminate ruling. [*note: Court records provide less reliable than evaluations by multidisciplinary teams trained in recognizing child abuse].)

Jones, D.P.H., & Seig, A. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E.B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, pp. 22-36.
(This article reports on 20 cases evaluated by the C. Henry Kempe Centre which involved both sexual abuse allegations and a parental custody dispute. 70% of cases were found to be reliable and 20% of the cases appeared fictitious.)

McGraw, J.M., & Smith, H.A. (1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49-61.
(This study describes 18 cases of child sexual abuse allegations made during divorce and custody disputes. The cases were reviewed using the clinical process of validation used at the Kempe Center in Denver, Colorado. The number of cases categorized as founded was eight [44.4%].  In two cases [ 11%]) there was insufficient information to make a determination, and five were judged to be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion. Three cases were judged to be fictitious [16.5%], only one of which came from a child.)

Paradise, J. E., Rostain, A. L., & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.
(Researchers systematically evaluated child sexual abuse cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author’s practice were systematically reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute [39% of the sample] were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children [5.4 vs 7.8 years]. Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict [nonsignificant] but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.)

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)
Using data from the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98), this paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation. The national study examined abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.
When there was an on-going custody dispute the substantiation rate by CPS was 40% and an addition 14% were suspected but there wasn’t enough evidence to make a final determination. 12% were believed to be intentionally false. Allegations of neglect was the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment. Substantiation rates varied significantly by source of report, with reports from the police (60%), custodial parents (47%), and children (54%) being generally most likely to be substantiated, while noncustodial parents (usually fathers) have a lower substantiation rate (33%), and anonymous reports being least likely to be substantiated (16%). Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the study, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.

Hlady, L.J., & Gunter, E.J. (1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591-3.
(Researchers reviewed the charts of all children involved in custody access disputes seen by Child Protective Services (CPS) at British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital in 1988. Of the 370 such children evaluated by CPS, 34 involved allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) that arose during custody/access disputes. These children’s physical examinations were then compared with the 219 children seen during the same one-year period for alleged CSA not involving custody/access disputes. A similar percentage of positive physical findings were found in both groups. It is concluded that the concern that allegations of CSA that arise during custody/access disputes are likely to be false is not borne out by these findings.)

9. Research used in this estimate:

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)
(Examined judicial responses to protective parents’ complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser.Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.)

Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.
(This study examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases the alleged perpetrator was granted unsupervised visitation.
Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody. In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother’s boyfriend, or one of mother’s relatives).

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11(8), 991-1021.
(Examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence on child custody and visitation outcomes. Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.)

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23. Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf
(Researchers compared 200 child custody mediations involving charges of domestic violence with 200 mediations that did not.Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue.)

See also:
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.

10. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2007). United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs .

For more information see:

Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9 (3), 33-47. (PDF)

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. (2006). 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them. Washington, DC: Author.http://leadershipcouncil.org/docs/ABA_custody_myths.pdf

More research is available from the Leadership Council web site
www.leadershipcouncil.org

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: www.leadershipcouncil.org

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE, AND CHILD CUSTODY Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Editors: Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D

No one wants to be known as the judge who hurts children and this research can prevent the kinds of tragic outcomes we see too frequently.

---

Table of Contents (PDF)

In a trend that started in the 1980s, and increasingly since then, family court judges across the U.S. have ordered thousands and thousands of children into unsupervised visitation with abusive biological fathers. 

In many cases, mothers have been denied any form of custody, with some losing all contact with their children. In the last few years, attorneys and social service advocates have met to address this issue at the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences. 

This book brings together the expertise and perspective of more than thirty contributors to BMCC in a comprehensive resource that arms advocates with the best thinking and most effective legal strategies in the battle to protect mothers and families from a system that often fails to address abuse and sometimes actually worsens the problem.

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody presents insights and hands-on practice guidance from the leading experts on child custody cases that involve intimate partner violence and child abuse.

Chapter authors address the prevalence of these problems, the complex reasons why protective mothers lose custody of their children, the things court agents and other professionals often do that contribute to bad outcomes, and the corrective measures that must be put into place to ensure legal protections for abused women and their children.

• Understand the harm caused by all types of abusive behavior, whether physical, verbal, financial, legal, or other forms.
• Guide the representation of protective mothers through research, case law, and consultation to improve case outcomes.
• Establish the paramount importance of children’s safety beyond all other priorities that may emerge in a child custody case.
• Provide judges with new insight into the dynamics of violence, recognize when experts and other types of witnesses are providing testimony based on myths, stereotypes, and discredited theories, and provide an empirically based, real-world rationale for orders emphasizing the safety of protective mothers and the accountability of batterers.

Written with the expressed goal of helping battered mothers assert their rights to a safe family life free from violence, the contributors to this book take a firm stand against so-called “balanced” points of view that attempt to explain or justify abusive behavior.  This book is grounded in the belief that battering is never justified, and batterers are not entitled to “equal rights” to custody when the safety of a child is in question.  Advocates who share that view will find this book a uniquely compelling ally in protecting and defending the rights of battered mothers.

REVIEWS:

“Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody will be instructive for policymakers, those working in the family justice system, and members of the media–which the authors say has by-and-large failed to expose custody court scandals. But it is a must-read for any mother involved in a child custody battle, and especially for mothers trying get free from an abusive relationship."
—R. Dianne Bartlow, Ms. Magazine Blog

“The stories of injustice in this book will shock you, and make you cry–but keep reading. Abusers are hoping you won’t pay attention because it will be too painful.  Prove them wrong by reading this book again and again and again–and share it with everyone who needs to know the truth.”
—Wendy Murphy, JD, New England Law-Boston; author of And Justice For Some

"We are excited about Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, a new book that we believe can be used to change the broken custody court system."
—Rita Smith, Executive Director, NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence)

“This book serves as a beacon of light to all those who have become jaundiced by the malfunctioning family court, social services, law guardian and mental health system.”
—Amy Neustein, Ph.D., Co-Author of From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running From the Family Courts—And What Can Be Done About It

“Wise judges will use the up-to-date research now available to take a fresh look at practices and assumptions deeply ingrained after thirty years.”
—Judge Sol Gothard, JD, MSW, ACSW, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana (ret.)

.

Praise for this important new resource …

“This comprehensive book is a gift to the cause of justice not only for victimized women and children but for anyone who cares about the integrity of law itself. The American legal system has for too long facilitated the very violence it purports to forbid, often allowing abusive men to use the courts to punish women and children who speak out against child sexual abuse and domestic violence. Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein have created a desperately needed manual that will empower generations of victims to fight back. My favorite section is the one that reminds us of the obvious: ‘Therapy is Not the Answer’ to violence. The stories of injustice in this book will shock you, and make you cry–but keep reading. Abusers are hoping you won’t pay attention because it will be too painful.  Prove them wrong by reading this book again and again and again–and share it with everyone who needs to know the truth.”
—Wendy Murphy, JD, New England Law-Boston; author of And Justice For Some

"We are excited about Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, a new book that we believe can be used to change the broken custody court system.  The book contains chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the US and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates.  The co-editors, Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and many of the contributors like Joan Zorza and Lois Schwaeber are long-time friends and supporters of our movement.  Although the contributors come from very different disciplines and backgrounds, there is remarkable agreement that thousands of children are being forced to live with abusers because of common mistakes and discredited practices used by the family court system.  The book is meticulously researched and cited so the findings have the highest credibility."
—Rita Smith, Executive Director, NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence)

“This book serves as a beacon of light to all those who have become jaundiced by the malfunctioning family court, social services, law guardian and mental health system. Whether the reader is a protective parent, child advocate, attorney, judge, social worker or mental health expert, this exquisitely organized and illuminating volume will help the reader to better understand the socio-historical, socio-legal, and socio-cultural forces shaping today’s domestic relations courts. The editors have assembled eminent scholars, practitioners, and child advocates in one volume that flows like a brilliantly conducted orchestral piece. This fine collection clarifies the core issues at hand and provides a full panoply of solutions; it adds a significant contribution to an expanding body of literature on domestic violence, abuse and child custody.”
—Amy Neustein, Ph.D., Co-Author of From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running From the Family Courts—And What Can Be Done About It, recipient of the NARCCW 2010 Pro Humanitate Literary Award, shared with Attorney Michael Lesher, a contributor to this volume.

“For years custody courts have confidently denied complaints by mothers of unfair treatment in domestic violence cases. If the court system had commissioned research to determine how the present practices are working, the result would be the information contained in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The research findings demonstrate court practices are outdated and their confidence misplaced. Wise judges will use the up-to-date research now available to take a fresh look at practices and assumptions deeply ingrained after thirty years. No one wants to be known as the judge who hurts children and this research can prevent the kinds of tragic outcomes we see too frequently.”
—Judge Sol Gothard, JD, MSW, ACSW, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana (ret.)

Related Publications: Child Victimization; Treating the Lifetime Health Effects of Childhood Victimization; Domestic Violence Report; Stalking; Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly;  Violence Against Women.

---

To order, use the orderform or contact:
Civic Research Institute • P.O. Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528
Tel: 609-683-4450 • Fax: 609-683-7291
Email: order@civicresearchinstitute.com

American Mothers Political Party today 8/26/2010@ 5:00 PM AT 5 pm Central Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Neither Rain, Nor Sleet, Nor Gloom of Night

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

AMPP TV—for more Videos

We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.

We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.

We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts! We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.

We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled. Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.

Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Children’s voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Are You Ready To Do The WHITE HOUSE Again….And More?

by Nancy Carroll at Parenting News Network ™

White House Vigil on Mothers Day, May 9th, 2010

On Mother’s Day 2010, a large crowd of well over 100 concerned citizens wearing Mothers of Lost Children white T-shirts rallied in front of the White House.  After a silent vigil from 11:00 am until noon and a speak out from noon to 1:00 pm that included Mildred Mohammad, former wife of the D.C. Sniper, there was a march down 17th Avenue. Our signs and banners protested the family courts endangerment of 58,000 children per year who must visit or live with their batterers and molesters with no hope of release.

The event was so well received that we will meet again on Friday, October 1st, 2010, the first day of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, in front of the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001 for a press conference at 11:00 am (pending permits). We will then march about a mile to the Senate buildings and attend prearranged visits with Senators to request that they reschedule the 1994 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee Congressional hearing that was postponed. That hearing was designed to address the issues of failures of child protective and family court systems to protect adult and child victims of violence and abuse, statutes of limitations for reporting sexual abuse, and retaliatory targeting of mandated reporters who report child sexual abuse. These problems have grown significantly worse in the past 16 years. We will end our march at the Sewall Belmont House, 144 Constitution Avenue NE, the suffragists’ headquarters a century ago.

We plan to stay at the Hostelling International, 1009 11th Street NW, Washington DC, which we found to be clean and inexpensive. The following day, Saturday, October 2nd, we will rally at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

For more information please contact Connie Valentine, 916-233-8381 orcppa001@aol.com.

The Storms Are Brewing American Mothers Political Party THURSADAY Blog Talk Radio 5 PM Central

The Storms Are Brewing

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 8/5/2010 5:00 PM 

Time

Tomorrow · 5:00pm – 6:00pm

Location Washington, DC

BlogTalkRadio

Vodpod videos no longer available.

More Info

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2010/08/05/the-storms-are-brewing

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children. We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser. We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled. Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children. Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Childrens voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

Special Guest: Connie Bedwell from Placer County California http://saveaaliyah.com/ who lost her child when child sexual abuse was suspected. Placer County is trying to keep Connie from exposing this nightmare. We are not going to let that happen. Do not miss this show that is going to call out the court whores of Placer County!

WordPress Tags: American,Political,Blog,Talk,Radio,Central,Call,Number,Time,Location,Washington,BlogTalkRadio,Video,Info,AMPP,movement,justice,system,DHHS,CITIZENSHIP,Rights,Children,abuser,custody,privileges,courts,President,action,Behind,interests,Childrens,Special,Guest,Connie,Bedwell,Placer,California,humans,doors

Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Kansas –Made a “Deal” and Sold a Child to her Abuser– so HE Could Become Chief Judge–HAPPY ANNIVERSARY – Mother Fucker

Americans For Prosperity and Kansas Judges-Claudine Dombrowski

July 31, 2010—Happy Anniversary you sick shit—I have not forgotten you—I Have not gone away —I will NOT SHUT UP and YOU are not forgotten–

Ten Years ago–July 31, 2000, Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court,  of Topeka Kansas Made a ‘deal’ with prior Judge James P Buchele – to  “Take the child away from mother-give her to her known rapist and drug/alcohol wife beating father—DADDY HAL RICHARDSON So he could  become Chief Judge” –he did- and he did.

See Manhattan Free Press …

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court

Shawnee County District Court– Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 – Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND  convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

CRIMINAL Halleck George RICHARDSON II, TOPEKA KANSAS MINUTE MAN SOLOR FILM TOPEKA KANSAS

OUTRAGES

NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies – 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances…

THESE CASES ARE NOT “TRAGEDIES”. THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:

Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN

KANSAS

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their “co-parenting.” WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele’s previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine’s being able to call the police.
But don’t blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vaccuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

RICHARD ANDERSON—- Topeka Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake

Manhattan Free Press

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.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: “When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child’s coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts.”

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, “There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson’s wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?”

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: “Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child’s coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can’t be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an “Alternatives to Battering Program” put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal’s report were: “Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility.”

Another report stated: “Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes.”

And finally: “Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back.”

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that “Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson.”

Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitued changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: “These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams.” During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, “after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor’s reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski.”

When asked about Mr. Richardson’s criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women’s Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.

In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: “Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age.”

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: “Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager.”

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receiveds help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele’s previous orders. Evan the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

OUT RAGES

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine’s history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here

If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here

AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994

AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996

AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000

AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003

THE “COFFEE TABLE” IN THE FATHER’S HOME IS A CHILD’S COFFIN.  MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court. This is a KANSAS CASE! The Claudine Dombrowski Case.

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence There is a crisis in our nation’s family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to … As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the[more…]

ShareThis

• CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

• 

  A special Mothers Day Article
  By Barry Goldstein

  For many years, protective mothers have complained about a broken custody court system giving custody to abusive fathers. The courts dismissed the complaints by saying they came from disgruntled litigants. Now, a new book based on multi-disciplinary research has confirmed that common mistakes in the custody[more…]

WordPress Tags: Judge,Richard,Anderson,Shawnee,Kansas,Made,Deal,Child,Abuser,Could,Become,Chief,ANNIVERSAY,Mother,Fucker,Americans,Judges,Claudine,Dombrowski,Anniversary,SHUT,Court,Topeka,James,Buchele,Take,drug,wife,father,DADDY,RICHARDSON,Manhattan,Free,Deprivation,Abuse,District,Street,Order,REPEAT,daughter,KNOWN,Batterer,RAPIST,CRIMINAL,Halleck,George,MINUTE,SOLOR,FILM,NOTE,Trag,drama,consequence,flaw,CASES,ethics,ideas,CHILDREN,CASE,custody,Rikki,testimony,behavior,Battery,Enforcement,Officer,Obstruction,Legal,Possession,Marijuana,violation,Open,Container,times,Worse,permission,manager,orders,prohibition,Guardian,Scott,McKenzie,portion,hell,America,Courts,Woman,Brake,Solid,foot,brass,coffin,Count,victim,Domestic,Violence,State,System,letter,Division,Harry,Services,Mexico,weapon,logic,instance,owner,Mauser,firearm,German,soldier,World,Europe,room,ownership,conclusion,Nazi,furniture,message,messages,documents,Service,workers,Dombrowske,November,Divorce,papers,records,Damage,conviction,Most,Probation,Conditions,Program,Women,Task,Force,comments,Client,facilitator,stance,sexist,language,refusal,Another,fact,proceedings,Throughout,reports,incident,piece,wood,June,Leuenberger,Great,Bend,area,history,Attorney,Litem,Under,direction,Trial,problems,hearsay,doctor,truth,misdemeanor,management,therapy,Here,Mutual,involvement,decision,dialogue,relationship,separation,parent,judgment,Further,authorities,petitioner,December,Marys,treatment,Hospital,Pottawatomie,Sheriff,event,Department,attention,National,Organization,Judicial,Initiative,Commission,Citizens,Justice,retirement,Evan,Webmaster,FULL,IACHR,relationships,BIRTH,HUSBAND,BEAT,ASSAULT,COFFEE,TABLE,HOME,WALL,ABOVE,SOFA,Litigation,Boggles,Mind,Line,Trip,Stop,crisis,nation,ShareThis,PROTECTIVE,Article,Barry,Goldstein,disciplinary,TRAGEDIES,decisions,convictions,feet,interruptions,sessions,violations,accusations,periods,fathers,Photos,complaints,alcohol,four,attorneys,three,months,visitation,week