Nazi Kansas – Parent Coordinators http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/2013/03/nazi-kansas-parent-coordinators.html
Posts Tagged ‘family court’
Family Court — Unconstitutional Judicial Gag Orders
In domestic law on August 3, 2011 at 1:49 pmThese orders are illegal under the First Amendment as violations of the constitutional prohibition against prior restraint
Amplify’d from justice.posterous.com
These orders are illegal under the First Amendment as violations of the constitutional prohibition against prior restraint. Now one mother, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union because of a gag order entered in her case by Judge Debra DeSegna in Providence, Rhode Island, July 29, at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families. Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU’s Rhode Island affiliate, called the order a “blatant violation of the First Amendment.” Let’s see some federal lawsuits. http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/judge-bars-ri-mother-from-talk.html
Over the past decade, family court judges routinely have uttered broader and broader gag orders, forbidding parents in custody battles from talking or writing about their cases. The pretext for these orders is that they are needed for the protection of the child. Nevertheless, it’s suspected that more often they are prompted by embarrassed officials who dislike scrutiny and criticism by internet bloggers in the wake of burgeoning out-of-control shoot-from-the-hip “therapeutic jurisprudence” in the family courts. The stated child protection rationale is specious because defamation, obscenity, violations of privacy, harassment, and other unprotected speech appropriately are addressed by the law after the fact when actual or potentially harmful speech can be specifically identified.
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/mOO7rC
Beware Family Court: What Victims and Advocates Should Know
In domestic law on July 1, 2011 at 4:33 amAmplify’d from www.justicewomen.com
In Family Court a Victim Is on Her Own Against the Abuser.
In Criminal Court it’s the State That Takes On the Abuser.
This is why criminal
cases are named in the form of ‘The People (meaning the
state or society) versus John Doe’, whereas family court
cases are named in the form of ‘Jane Doe versus John Doe’.
The criminal court
system pits the immense powers of the state against the accused.
In marked contrast, family court is merely a stage set by the
state where two private individuals can come to battle out their
personal differences, using their own devices, with the state
acting more as a weak referee, and wielding very little power.
Family court and criminal
court are profoundly different in premise, structure, power, and
purpose. The moment a victim steps into family court, whether
to seek a restraining order, custody and visitation rulings, a
divorce, or any other family court order regarding her abuser,
she’s literally opening the door for her abuser to launch unchecked
counterattacks against her, in an arena that was never designed
to deal with criminal dynamics, with the very real possibility
that the abuser may end up turning the family court against her.
In family court, an unprepared victim of family violence can be
as vulnerable to the perpetrator’s abuse as she is in the home.
Most people mistakenly
think that the difference between family court and criminal court
consists mainly in the different issues these courts deal with.
It’s a mistake that can seriously endanger victims of family violence
who too often trust that the family court system is built to protect
her in much the same way as the criminal system. Nothing could
be further from reality.
In family court, the
family issue at hand – whether custody, divorce, visitation, or
restraining orders, etc. – is deemed a private matter of such
minor consequence to the community that the two individuals in
a family court case are on their own; each responsible for investigating,
preparing, conducting, and defending their own cases. To be sure,
they are each free to hire their own private attorney to help
them if they wish – or if they can. But this factor also generally
serves to further disadvantage a victim of family violence and
to further empower a violent abuser, since it’s usually the abuser
who controls the family funds and can hire a private attorney,
and the victim who cannot.
B.
In Family Court an Abuser can Launch Free Ranging Counterattacks
against the Victim.
In Criminal Court, Counterattacks by the Abuser Are Forbidden
or Tightly Restricted.
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/lbM0LG
Why “Billy” Cries- Court Grants Custody to Admitted Abusive Father
In domestic law on June 2, 2011 at 1:29 pmThe reality is played out every day in our failing courts.
The Saratoga County Family Court system abandoned an abused five-year-old boy by granting custody to an abusive parent resulting in wrenching heartache for a mother whose weeping tears for her child are prayers for help.
Victims of abuse are often faceless, perhaps to protect our own psyche as well as protecting the victim. It’s easier to disassociate the harsh reality of human suffering. As you read the sad but true story below, associate this child dear to you, put yourself in the footsteps of the mother and be resolved to work to end the tyranny too often imposed by our so-called justice system.
The loving home Billy should have been raised in was swiftly replaced by a bitter custody battle. According to a sworn statement by Billy’s grandmother, “Billy’s father admitted in Family Court that while under his care, he and two other adults held Billy down and administered an enema to him because he had kept the father up all night crying”.
The court granting the father custody of Billy in essence rewarded such heinous acts at the cost of Billy’s well being.
Amplify’d from www.northcountrygazette.org
Victims of abuse are often faceless, perhaps to protect our own psyche as well as protecting the victim. It’s easier to disassociate the harsh reality of human suffering. As you read the sad but true story below, associate this child dear to you, put yourself in the footsteps of the mother and be resolved to work to end the tyranny too often imposed by our so-called justice system.
The story is as originally written by the mother, replacing only actual names and dates, to allow you to graphically grasp what has happened, what does happen in our courts.
Below is a mother’s plea for help.
My story is just one of many Family Court cases that are simply heartbreaking and unjust. Not only does my son now suffer the consequences of a bad decision made by the court, so do I. This is one of the most disgusting, most “dirty” cases that I have ever heard.
When she was 27, this mother’s son, Billy, was born. The joy of parenthood was replaced by domestic violence. The father often would spit repeatedly at the mother of his son, stuff her mouth with dirty socks, go off into a rage of violence spurred by jealousy, tie her hands with shoe strings.
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/lttRC8
Parental Alienation Syndrome – Therapeutic Jurisprudence Trades in the Family Court – GAL’s, Supervised Visitation, therapists, custody evaluators and other ‘spawns’ that work for the Courts
In domestic law on May 31, 2011 at 4:28 pmAmplify’d from kansascourtreform.blogspot.com
NOTE: The LIZNOTES index page contains links to recommended off-site locations as well as the on-site articles. Also see Section on PSYCHOLOGY, because the entertaining of alienation theory (by whatever name **) has become integral to the plying of the therapeutic jurisprudence trades in the family courts. It is a primary creator of the relationship engineering industries, and spawns work for “experts” opining pro and con, as well as GALs, supervised visitation centers, court-ordered therapists, custody evaluators, parenting coordinators, and all of their respective lawyers. [** hostile-aggressive parenting, enmeshment, intrusive parenting, intractable hostilities, high conflict, etc.]
Parental Alienation Syndrome; hostile-aggressive parenting; enmeshment
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/mcdsKc
WHERE’S A PAIR OF RUBY SLIPPERS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
In domestic law on May 21, 2011 at 10:49 pmAmplify’d from mjilldykes.blogspot.com
A Kansas Judge consistently has shown how unethical Family Courts are. The story is simple, a mother, Claudine Dombrowski, loses custody to her abuser and the Family Court think that she will go away. They hope she will give up. They are counting on her shutting up. But there is a problem with that, this woman has friends. She has lots and lots of friends that have gone through the same corruption of Family Courts and unethical Judges, Court Whores and the like. This Judge has gone as far as not allowing this mothers child from attending her loving Grandmothers funeral. This Judge wants to make problems because of a tribute video?
Not on my watch…… You cannot shut us all up Judge….we will not allow you to tarnish the memory of “Granny”….hold us all in contempt…..and watch out for falling houses.
SEE VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7VMsGDyMU
IF ONLY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND HER PRECIOUS CHILD COULD CLICK THEIR HEELS AND GET THE HELL OUTTA KANSUCKS!
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/kdjLFj
Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection
In domestic law on May 21, 2011 at 7:27 pmFamily Court and Fathers’ Rights = A Deadly Combination
Amplify’d from americanmotherspoliticalparty.org
When do reproductive rights end? Do they end at birth? Do they continue throughout a child’s life? Do reproductive rights extend to parental rights? These are questions we are just starting to ask. And finding the answer can be, in many cases, the difference between life and death.
Most agree that women have a right to control their own bodies. However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women. And in cases where a woman then has children in an abusive setting, what are the woman’s reproductive rights and how do these intersect with her parental rights? Surely, charges of “failure to protect” can be used against her if she or the child is harmed. But what happens when women flee such relationships or try to deny abusive parents access to their children? Does either the judicial system or society support her in her efforts to protect her children? Do we believe her? Provide her with protection? Deny abusers access to children?
We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.
In a recent case our judicial system was tested and failed. Katie Tagle sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia [1] to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child. She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The judge thought she was lying [2]. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying…” And later, “Mr. Garcia claims it’s total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that “she used” to deny him access to his son. Even when she mentions the evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying…” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later they were both found dead.
Family Court and Fathers’ Rights = A Deadly Combination
Historically, battered women have had problems retaining custody of their children. Mainly this was due to how they present; in a word, poorly. They cry, they’re frightened, they appear anxious and even hostile. Now add to this mix the Fathers’ Rights movement, a group referred to as anti-feminist, backlash and even, the “Abusers’ Lobby” and you have what amounts to a catastrophe, if not a deadly combination, for women and children. (In contrast, positive parenting or responsible fatherhood groups often work as allies with women.)
The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface — but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.
Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.
Parental alienation (PA) or parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the idea that a parent poisons the mind of the child(ren), is another idea introduced within the last two decades by fathers rights groups. Developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, PAS is highly controversial. Proponents claim parents (mostly mothers) turn their children against the other parent. Opponents claim PAS can mask child abuse. Indeed, research by Jay Silverman [9] found 54 percent of cases with documented abuse were in favor of abusers. PAS was used in nearly every case.
The Incredible Lightness of Domestic Violence
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/jLYse4
No Way To Live Family Law Act Aids Abusive Fathers, Imperils Children
In domestic law on May 21, 2011 at 7:19 pmAmplify’d from americanmotherspoliticalparty.org
THE Family Law Act is failing to protect children from ongoing trauma at the hands of abusive and violent fathers, a study has found. The act’s aims of protecting children from violence and giving them “meaningful involvement” with both parents was being resolved in favour of contact even in cases of severe domestic violence, the study reveals. Sydney University education and social work senior lecturer Lesley Laing, the report’s author, said more thought needed to be given to what formed a “meaningful relationship” when a parent had traumatised a child through domestic violence. “There is no requirement that a parent who has harmed a child in this way must demonstrate they can offer a safe and meaningful relationship”, she said.
The women describe a situation where they are discouraged by legal advisers and others from raising violence issues in the Family Court for fear of being seen as an “unfriendly” or “alienating” parent unwilling to support contact with the father.
Anything that you do to try and advocate for your children is somehow twisted into being “high conflict and parental alienation”, one woman said. “So you are basically silenced. And the children are silenced.
Another said she had agreed to the children having sleepovers at their father’s place because she felt she had no choice. Her lawyer had convinced her that if she objected the judge would give the father even more contact.
The study, No Way to Live, will put further pressure on federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland to amend the Family Law Act. An earlier review he commissioned recommended amendments to provide greater protection.
The report shows the women are battling a complex and unco-ordinated system that often sees state child protection services shunting matters to the Family Court though the court with no powers of investigation.
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/jfOPBl
Insanity? Nope, it’s Family Court
In domestic law on May 21, 2011 at 7:09 pmWe have spent millions of dollars printing brochures and making public service announcements to victims of domestic violence encouraging them to leave violent relationships and telling them of the harmful effects on their children.
And so we go on, handing down family violence from one generation to the next…
Amplify’d from americanmotherspoliticalparty.org
Imagine that your home was broken into, vandalized and burglarized one night. You were roughed up and tied up while he ransacked your home. Fortunately, he left you shaken and hurt, but not seriously injured such as to require hospitalization. You were successfully able to identify him and his vehicle as he sped away.
You arrive in court and the first thing the judge asks you is if you are willing to go to mediation with the burglar. When you refuse, the judge labels you ‘uncooperative’ and ‘hostile’ to the burglar’s continued relationship with you. Even though the burglar was caught red-handed with your goods, and you were an eye witness to the crime, the judge now decides that he can’t possibly decide the case without first appointing a social worker termed a “burglary evaluator” to assess yours and the burglar’s relationship.
The psychologist recommends that you be restricted from access to your belongings until you can accept the burglar’s rightful relationship to continued access to your home and personal effects. He further recommends you attend weekly conjoint therapy with the burglar to work on being more cooperative with him in the future.
When the social worker/evaluator can not determine what is best for your relationship or your stolen goods, they ask the judge to have both you and the burglar psychologically evaluated, because you seem “anxious”, “angry” and “uncooperative” with the burglar. The court-appointed psychologist, who has no experience in being the victim of violent crime and has not studied the effects of such trauma, also determines that you are uncooperative, hostile, anxious, and you have a negative opinion of the burglar that can’t be healthy. After all, the burglar had nothing but good things to say about you, your home and your belongings during his evaluation.
The judge decides to wait a year or so to see how you work through your relationship with the burglar before he can decide upon the burglary conviction. He chastises you that you had better really work at the relationship or he may just grant the burglar’s request to maintain sole ownership of your property. None of these “experts” can be sued civilly for their negligence and incompetence because they have judicial or quasi-judicial immunity.
See this Amp at http://bit.ly/inBNhg
Claudine Dombrowski
Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue 