9.4.10

Guardian AD Chargem- M. Jill Dykes Topeka KS paid for by YOUR $Tax $

 

Court Whores and Court Appointed Child Abusers since they have decided that THEY are immune I will have to begin a blog posting campaign on EACH one.
Google your own names those who profited from the blood of my family- your silence is NOT mine and I am Silent no more!

Hit list
Odyssey- Where Sexual Pedophiles get re integrated back into the home with victims- Grant money funds this- FYI- NOT battered Mommies- We strive ONLY to Serve the Perpetrators: Kara Haney, Drex Flott…..
Donald R. Hoffman, Jason P Hoffman- ALL COURT quackos evaluations, criminal records, Judge Debenham, Dr, Rodeheffer and Dr Albott both known better as Dr. Pedophiles- seewww.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com  and the list will keep growing along with 16 years of documentation and recordings….
But this one is for

M. Jill Dykes, G.A.L

email: faith_full_@hotmail.com

1243 SW Topeka, Blvd., Suite B

Topeka, Kansas 66612

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaOwVPugJ5Q&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

 

btw Jill Dykes- although your

OPININION under Supreme court rule 100 entitles you to kill..; it DOES NOT entitle you to defend against the ethics charges and Behavioral Sciences Board- And Charge the county for your defense- by your own hand…. in your over time expenses- below( note the time ACTUALLY spent with the child she is court appointed to Abuse?
.5 hrs good fucking gawd!

[scribd id=24383015 key=key-g20qendr44ue0guub6o]

2009_1-14- GAL M. Jill Dykes Court Appointed Abuser submits for OVERTIME pay

2009 January 14 GAL M. Jill Dykes Court Appointed Abuser submits for OVERTIME pay

COMPELLING STORIES FROM PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH PLACEMENT AND REMOVAL OF CHILDREN

By Earl Glynn On December 4, 2009
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqBFHIaa0w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]


 

Technorati Tags:Guardian,Chargem,Jill,Dykes,Topeka,Court,Whores,Child,Abusers,Google,Silent,Odyssey,Where,Sexual,Pedophiles,victims,Grant,money,Mommies,Serve,Perpetrators,Kara,Haney,Drex,Flott,Donald,Hoffman,Jason,records,Judge,Debenham,Rodeheffer,Albott,documentation,Blvd,Suite,Kansas,OPININION,Supreme,ethics,Behavioral,Sciences,Board,Charge,defense,expenses,Abuse,Abuser,OVERTIME,evaluationsNote: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Family 'Lawless' Court Whores.

Odyssey Topeka Kansas Court Whores Profit by Reintegrating Pedophiles back into the home and refusal to Protect ‘abused’ children and their battered mothers.

Happy New Year Topeka Kansas Courts and whores of the Court- as you all sit around ‘cheering’ each other- while the blood of innocents continue to spill- your crimes against humanity will NOT go un-noted.

As you see from the letter below- Odyssey-(as represented to myself- and my daughter- and the Courts) and where I made payments for my Supervised Visits (all 3 of them this past year…)

What is a court whore?

“ Those who assist and or collude with others for self-profit or agenda in denying basic HUMAN Rights and access to Justice through NON-Scientific philosophy – just some ones- opinion not a professional but a idea.” Court Appointed Child Abusers.

Odyssey is a Whore of the Court by all definition.  The clear intent of SERVING the PEDOPHILE is more than clear-(oh btw we force the victims of the pedo crimes to participate in- as well you know we will RE-Integrate the pedo back into the home- and call it SAPA.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence must be and will be eliminated from our Court rooms.Whores of the Court Whores of the Court ISBN #0060391979 ReganBooks.

Download the entire book in fully-searchable. PDF format right now: ...
www.whoresofthecourt.com/ -

This is my open reply to you Julie- Dittmer. and Odyssey-on expose list (three down)

1. M. Jill Dykes 2. Judge David Debenham 3. Odyssey (Kara Haney, Drex Flott and by her own choosing Julie Dameron- Dittmer)

Again, You are mandated reporters, again you care nothing about the children ONLY the blood money from the perps,  the grant money of the taxpayer to give Sexual Pedophile (and your secure jobs for those who make up ‘treatment’ for)REINTEGRATION into the homes-

But lets continue to batter the mother and child and protect the ‘batterer’ once again- it only stands to reason does it not..?

Protect the pedophile- protect the batterer. Keep the funding rolling in.

Following Julie Dittmer’s idiotic letter below please note the following indexed recording the day after my mother died- when Drex Flott, Kara Haney and myself talked about my daughter going to her grandmothers funeral- and the clear and present ‘danger’ that my daughter is in- as the extreme ‘control’ that her father has over her- and as long as ‘perp’ has control- my daughter should… remain somewhat safe…. listen for your self.

Then listen to the hearing…that denied a child to go to her granny’s funeral- (but they let her dog)

Now, why would I, be anything but upset? go figure <scratching head>

also, by the way;

Dear Julie, thanks for your ‘prompt’ reply. (two months later) I Googled TREC –sigh-

I also hyperlinked your letter- I have made only two comments to your letter at end of letter

From: Julie Dittmer mailto:julied@odyssey.kscoxmail.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 3:35 PM

To: AngelFury@angelfury.org

Subject: Re: -- SPAM -- FW: Odyssey, Torture and Rikki

Claudine, this is Julie Dittmer. I no longer run the Supervised Visit program at Odyssey; in fact, that program is no longer an Odyssey program at all. (THE PROGRAM IS A NOT FOR PROFIT ONE, AND IT'S NAME IS TREC NOW. ) I left that position to have some surgery this past summer, and have had nothing to do with your case since long before that. It would be inappropriate of me to participate in any contact regarding the current status of your case or your daughter, but you and I both know that I have never been anything but nice to you both. I cannot imagine why you would see fit to wage a personal vendetta against me using the Internet, (and to include my Odyssey brochure, with links to my name) when I did nothing more or less than my job and I got you visits with your daughter, which no one else would do for you at that time. I am sorry if your visits have not gotten you what you wanted or where you wanted to be right now, but we both know that your anger at me and at Odyssey is misplaced. I passed along your past comments and messages to TREC as you asked when you sent the message below. This all I can do at this point, and am no longer involved.

I have seen the Internet links and your reproduction of my brochure, associated with words like whore and pedophile. I would like to continue to be nice to you, but your actions have now forced me to issue you a warning: If you do not remove everything that includes my name, the name of the Odyssey Group, and the reproduction of our copyrighted material from your postings, (including those under your Angelfurypsuedonym), I will be forced to take legal action against you personally and against any organization you represent. I have consulted an attorney and am clear that this constitutes slander and is illegal, (Its’ not Slander when it it’s the truth) as well as just plain wrong. Please let me know immediately that you have removed these postings (and that you will post nothing further involving me within five calendar days) or I will proceed with a lawsuit.

(Knock yourself out- I am used to injustice and threats and actions to silence the truth, I have only the truth and it need no public support- the truth still stands.) cmd

Cordially,

Julie

----- Original Message -----

From: AngelFury@AngelFury.org

To: julied@odyssey.kscoxmail.com

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:20 PM

Subject: -- SPAM -- FW: Odyssey, Torture and Rikki

I trust you will forward on, perhaps it is you to whom I need to address this with any ways?

Please advise and Thank you!

Claudine

From: AngelFury@AngelFury.org [mailto:AngelFury@AngelFury.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:26 PM
To: drexbuke@cox.net
Subject: Odyssey, Torture and Rikki
Importance: High

Drex,

  I will simply add to this that I have the video and audio recordings of ‘our’ visit; yourself, Kara and I already on line (but private atm) when my mother died one year ago yesterday. If you recall both you and Kara stated your more than obvious concerns about the ‘control’ issues surrounding Rikki, the girlfriend Julie and her father. You both also voiced your concerns for Rikki’s safety and that as long as dad had ‘control’ she ‘should’ be somewhat safe.

  I need not remind you that you are mandated reporters. But, my goal is to see my daughter pure and simple. I have not seen her since before the last hearing. We have hearing to end this all Nov. 13th, 2009. I would very much appreciate any positive efforts made in getting a few visits in with Rikki, in whatever way you can before the hearing.

Drex, it takes only one to make a difference. I am asking on behalf of Rikki, I and Rikki’s dead grandmother; to whom she never was able to say good bye too.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated and any intervention to assist Rikki and I.

Claudine Dombrowski

785.845.3417

Domestic violence is on the rise in Shawnee County | KTKA.com

An Interview with DA Chad Taylor and Survivor Claudine Dombrowski

From: AngelFury@AngelFury.org [mailto:AngelFury@AngelFury.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:12 PM
To: TuckDuncan@aol.com
Subject: Odyssey, Torture and Rikki
Importance: High

http://e-mail-servers.com/6ce230cc92e812ec91dabf462c537b05worker.jpg

I talked with Rikki last night, she is devastated and misses her mom, she is being told the most outlandish things like I have abandoned her, do not love her, and the latest, that Kara said to her that Rikki will not be able to see me again, as I do not have the money to PAY Odyssey. (I have NOT been informed by Kara or any other that this was the case)

This is beyond insane. I did the best I could with her during our extended phone call, that in the beginning she was reluctant as of the lies that have been and are continuing to be told to her, but after an hour of her breaking down- literally, crying her heart out, she is left just hurting and needing very much closure on thisCONTROL that dad has over OUR parenting time. And a chance to being to heal.

Also please be aware that she is being told to say the same things to the court, only her knowledge and what she is ordered to tell. She trusts NO ONE. She is scared and aches for her mom and her grandma. I am still here however.

FYI:

Although I do not have two dimes to rub together at the moment- I am in a clean safe 2 bedroom apartment. Rikki knows where, She has always known where I am at (even if car only) this is done as well through the Safe at Home, Address Confidential Program through the Secretary of State. http://www.kssos.org/safeathome/

When Hoffman and the GAL from hell demand address – as with all enrolled with children ONLY the attorney General has access to knowledge of residence.

That is all that is needed in the lifting of the Supervised visits (which NEVER should have been imposed to begin with). The Leadership Council Just released: Domestic Violence by Proxy. I have never been shown to be a flight risk any more than a danger to my almost age 15 year old daughter.

This little girl (my only daughter) is in tremendous amounts of pain, unbearable and healing from what this system has done to her by so viciously taking her mother away is imperative to her ever being able to recover.

See the KS AG’s web site for Silverman, Jaffe and Bancroft research showing that children’s relationship with their mother is VITAL to their own self recovery. (I helped get this info into the State by THIS case alone)

Tuck, please make this end for my daughter’s sake- please. Having her mother dead or homeless or in ‘CONTROL” via SV is NOT going to help her. Rikki and I discussed this, and although she is being told to say she wants it- she does not. She wants her mom. Needs her mom.

Please respond when you can I am sure that you already have it worked out and that I as well as Rikki, just need to be patient a little while longer, Nov. 13th. For Justice to begin its slow turn, bear in mind however that both of us are suffering as a result of the wait so please do not allow any continuations, or deviations from the hearing.

Please, I implore you, and graciously thank you for all your help, as does Rikki. We are both beyond exhausted.

Sincerely,

Claudine Dombrowski

785.845.3417

* PBS Documentary: Breaking the Silence; Children’s Stories

* Family Law Documentary: Crisis in America’s Family Courts; Our Children at Risk

Leadership Council recommends For further information:

http://angelfury.podbean.com

10-29-2008 1h 50m

Index

8:5010:28 begins

13:2914:13 Kira petition what do you want and the court hearing set

16:07 -what is our involvement

17:00- contact with rikki

17:50- lacey [the dog]

18:43- motion 4 hearing asking for normalcy in visits

20:19 -about the motion being filed rikki not on the kid more convenient for dad?

21:45 -dependent upon her peers give her money

22.35- $20.00 to e

22.53 -denied braces no phone-denied contact with her phone

23.55 -it is not up to rikki

25.00 -dad broke my mouth but don’t place psych eval.

26:12- power struggle with courts (I acted out)

27:00 -we deserve this trip together

29:00- I drove twice week I worked at LSH

30:10- rikki –‘granny won’t let dad hurt mom’

30:00 -(15 years)

32:00 KsJudicialperformance act (liz samora

33.00 drex more than we know.

34.00 try loosing a child to an abuser I thought- I had the right to be safe

36:00 my mom my pain not going to let that happen to my daughter.

BMCC two years’ courageous kids

38:00 not a part of my life

39:00

41:00- how come dad don’t love me (rikki)

43:00- rikki is awesome drex says ‘I am in her’ ag 's office- rikki early years 4 or 5 years old

46:50 - when they took my daughter they took my soul

47:00- letter from hospital

48:50 -contact with GAL braces Aug 6th en re braces

51:58 Rikki says ‘dad is in charge (dont write this down)

53:33- kira a couple of issues 1. Funeral 2. Unsupervised

1:15:30 does rikki want to go en re the court

1:17:15 rikkis voice well rikki says

1:19:50 Kira- ‘rikki does have a very controlled home a lot of external Control

1:21:50 for rikkis safety- choose to disengage as I am not safe for her- this is how are lives are-

1:23:25- admissions of abuse

1:26:40 -how rikki survives- Julie- takes a lot for rikki

1:28:28 Julie is in fear too -rikki is the best judge

1:30:00 visits are very empowering very balanced positive strength based

1:33:20 sv is not there gives us freedom rikki and I freedom? to monitor at discretion we don’t need help to nurture our relationship states kira

1:37:23 visits don’t cut my visits drex reintegration reunification

1:38:36 visits went back because julie and rikki to cancel the visit so they just set them back temporary football season-Rikki in a double binder-

1:41:13 - kira -rikki struggled with telling mom no more weekends. drex- I cry a lot- national zone

1:48:40 end

Parent Alienation Awareness Day=Abusers Excuse Day

 

Parent Alienation Awareness Day

If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, "Abusers Awareness Day", no one would help champion their goals.

There needs to be a little bit of propaganda to blanket their true goals.

Richard Gardner gave them that blanket by promoting ideas that society should punish those to speak against abuse as, "sick" and "requiring therapy". He coined the term, "Parental Alienation Syndrome". Appalled by the pro-pedophile material that was circulated on a large scale, researchers on child abuse and family violence worked even harder to debunk this content and for many years it has been frequently rejected by the American Psychology Association as a Syndrome. Regardless of the theory being discredited, it has still been used on court cases all over the world including a case where it was a defense for a brutal murder of a mother. Some backyard psychologists have even held workshops about, "Maternal Gate-keeping" and others have promoted theories such as, "Malicious Mother Syndrome".

Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop "false accusers" despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.

Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.

Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser's causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.

Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.

Here are a list of confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/digest.php

http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.support.boylovers/parent-alienation_s.html

http://www.boychat.org/messages/1195439.htm

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

http://pedophileophobia.com/Richard%20Gardner.htm

http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm

http://www.sohopeful.org/intl/facts/files/Investigative%20System/IPT%20Journal%20Manipulating%20the%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20System.pdf

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PBS Documentary: Breaking the Silence; Children's Stories

Parental Alienation (PAS)

PAS is a Scam

[vodpodid=Video.2216124&w=425&h=350&fv=docId%3D-7876692673728025307%26playerMode%3Dsimple%26hl%3Den]

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7876692673728025307]

 

Courts Awarding Custody to Abusers and Domestic Violence Homicides Is There a Connection?

 

 

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,

8.4.10

Auditor, Judicial Council spar over family courts audit

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=yr7vxhlwzi1xg1&xid=yr62vf6nkox10b&done=.yr7vxhlwzipxg1

By Malcolm Maclachlan | 04/08/10 12:00 AM PST

State Auditor Elaine Howell and the Judicial Council of California continue to battle over her request for a wide range of documents she said she needs to conduct a legislatively-mandated audit of family courts.

The two offices have been in contact since last July, when the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) unanimously approved a request to audit the family courts in Marin and Sacramento Counties. The audit was requested by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, after numerous allegations of conflict of interests and other problems in those jurisdictions.

This correspondence became an open dispute last month, when the Bureau of State Audits threatened to subpoena documents it says it needs to complete the audit. This came in a March 18 letter from Sharon Reilly, chief legal counsel for the auditor’s office, who gave the Judicial Council a deadline of Monday, April 5.

The reply did come by the deadline. But the response from Mary Roberts, general counsel for the Judicial Council, continued to challenge many of the auditor’s requests. Roberts letter contends that the auditor is asking for “confidential/sealed documents” such as “criminal history reports, fee waivers, psychological reports” and similar documents.

“To be clear, the courts are not opposed to providing the bureau access to all individuals and records ‘necessary for the completion of this audit.’ Moreover, the courts have never opposed such access,” Roberts wrote, but said that they “must first give reasonable notice to the parties involved.”

“We’re trying to work it out with the auditor how much they √•really need,” said Judicial Council spokesman Philip Carrizosa.

According to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Eugene Balonon, who oversaw the Sacramento family courts for all ofå 2009 as part of a standard judicial rotation, notification would not be a very labor intensive process. The auditor would only be reviewing a sample set of cases, and it would merely be a matter of using an automated system to send out form letters to the people involved.

This notification, however, does raise the possibility that some people would object to their information being shared—and might attempt to take legal action to prevent it.
“That would be up to them,” Balonon said. “We’ve not going to give them any legal advice. All we want to do is make sure people know their confidential records are being accessed, and not by a judge. Our own court staff cannot even look at those documents.”

According to Roberts letter, the Judicial Council and the Auditor’s office have been arguing since at least November whether these kinds of documents were even necessary for the audit.

She continued, “None of these documents appears necessary or relevant to the completion of the audit inasmuch as they are in no way related to the process the court uses for court appointments.”

These “court appointments” are at the heart of the original audit request. The audit effort was pushed by a Marin-based group called the Center for Judicial Excellence (CJE). Their critique of the family courts claims that judges, attorneys and court-mandated specialists such as child psychologists have become overly friendly in these counties and a few others—with high-priced, court-mandated evaluation contracts being given favored to people. The CJE has also alleged that the high cost of these specialists and other aspects of family courts favor more well-off litigants.

Kathleen Russell, a consultant with the CJE, said the documents the Judicial Council is arguing are unnecessary could be very relevant in proving these allegations. She also noted that no confidential information would be in the auditor’s report.

“Innocent children’s health and safety is at stake here, and nine months later, the AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts, which oversees the Judicial Council] is still dragging its feet,” said Russell. “The California Judiciary has operated in the dark for decades, so the notion of transparency is pretty new to them. We applaud the auditor for not backing down from the courts’ stonewalling.”

According to Howle’s office, they’re still determining their next move. Leno said that he and the auditor do want to protect confidential litigant information, especially related to cases that are still open. But Leno also said that Judicial Council letter acknowledged the broad powers that auditor has to require disclosure.

“At this point we just have to be patient and await the determination of the auditor and her legal counsel,” Leno said. “The audit will be conducted, and on the terms of the auditor.”
The Auditor’s office is also set to begin another audit involving the courts this month. On Feb. 18, JLAC approved a request to audit the California Case Management System. CCMS, as it is known, is a new computer system designed to track court records. Its goal is to standardize court records while protecting confidential data and streamlining record retrieval.
The original price estimate for the system was $260 million back in 2004. But CCMS’s cost has skyrocketed, to $1.7 billion. The State’s Chief Information Officer, Teri Takai, has also conducted an audit on the system. Those results are due within the next two weeks.

At their April 23rd meeting, the Judicial Council will also hear results from yet another look into the court system. The Elkins Family Law Task Force will present findings of review of family courts that began when they were seated back in May 2008 to “conduct a comprehensive review of family law proceedings,” according to the Judicial Council website.

The Task Force has gathered testimony on problems with the family courts at numerous meetings around the state. It has also become a focal point for many groups that have been critical of the family courts in California, often pitting organizations representing battered women against father’s rights groups.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Custody Dispute; another Father kills 5-year-old son, self in Columbia County

 

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/04/08/blotter/doc4bbd594c73b43358151159.txt

Published: Thursday, April 08, 2010

By Freeman staff and The Associated Press

ANCRAMDALE — A 42-year-old man apparently killed his 5-year-old son with a shotgun and then took his own life, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office said on Wednesday.

Sheriff David W. Harrison Jr. said deputies were called to 9715 state Route 82 in the southeastern Columbia County community of Ancramdale about 9:30 a.m. and found Franklin Hankerson and his son Khaliff dead from gunshot wounds.

The boy was shot several times with a shotgun, authorities said; the father appeared to have died from a rifle shot.

Harrison said it appeared the two deaths were a murder-suicide but that the investigation was not yet complete.

Investigators believe the shootings took place about 11:30 p.m. Tuesday. Police were notified about the deaths in a 911 call Wednesday morning from the boy’s grandfather, who lives next door, Harrison said.

Autopsies were to be performed today.

Harrison said Hankerson was unemployed and undergoing kidney dialysis.

The sheriff also said Hankerson and the boy’s mother were not married and did not live together and that there had been custody disputes. The mother also complained about Hankerson’s marijuana use, Harrison said.

The Register-Star of Hudson reported the mother lives in Pine Plains and Khaliff attended a Dutchess County preschool.

Hankerson did not leave a suicide note, the sheriff said.

PAS is a Scam  Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness Day aka “Abusers Deniers Day”

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The Family Court Mafia: Marin County Courts Delaying Family Court Audit

From the Parenting News Network™

What is Marin County, California Family Court hiding? After many years of complaints by family court victims, an audit has been ordered focusing on the use and potential misuse of court-appointed specialists, such as mediators, investigators and therapists, in family-law disputes. Members of the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted unanimously last year to approve the audit with the encouragement of state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

“Despite the fact that our statutes clearly give our office access to the individuals and records we are now seeking and make it a misdemeanor for the courts to fail or refuse to grant us access, it is now March 2010 and the courts are still refusing to cooperate,” Sharon Reilly, chief legal counsel to California State Auditor Elaine Howle, wrote in a March 18 letter to Robert Buckley, managing attorney of the Judicial Council of California. The state auditor’s office has notified superior courts in Marin and Sacramento counties it will seek a court order to gain access to information needed to conduct an audit of the family court system – unless the courts guarantee by Monday that they will comply.

Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin watchdog organization, said, “This is indicative of the lack of transparency at the Marin County courthouse. In our four years of attempting to get basic information from the court and meet with them and collaborate with them they have always had a stonewall and been very territorial about information that is not confidential. That is why there is such a need for this audit.”

For more information see: State auditor threatens to subpoena Marin Superior Court records

PAS is a Scam

Parental Alienation Syndrome

ShareThis

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

This is your brain on PAS/PA/PAD

PAS is a Scam     Parental Alienation Syndrome

From: Glenn’s Cult

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don't know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child - even amid allegations of violence by mother's family in foreign country and mother's widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother's native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean - father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn't siblings and extended family of mother's be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father's rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family - in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don't get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here's how it works. It's only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn't count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child's life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don't know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER'S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives - ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker's, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father's Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court's actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Posted by Glenn's Cult?at 6:56 AM

Labels: Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, PA, PAD, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Courts Awarding Custody to Abusers and Domestic Violence Homicides Is There a Connection?

Parenting News Network™

Parental Alienation Syndrome PAS is a Scam

“Time’s Up!”

By Barry Goldstein

The research establishing that the custody court system is broken and has a pattern of mishandling domestic violence cases is now overwhelming.  The new book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, I co-edited with Dr. Mo Therese Hannah brings all the most up-to-date research together in one place.  It includes a multi-disciplinary review of the relevant professional fields by the leading experts in the US and Canada.  The meticulous citations provide overwhelming proof that common mistakes and the use of myths, stereotypes and gender bias have resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers.  At the same time recent statistics about domestic violence homicide confirm an increase in the murder rate after many years of reductions.  Many have been quick to assume the increase is caused by the poor economy, but in this article, I want to look at what, if any role the problems in the custody court system are having on domestic violence homicides.

Lack of Research on Success of Court Outcomes

The court system operates upon the assumption that once a case is decided, the facts are established and the outcome is accurate.  This assumption may have contributed to the failure to seek research on the validity of court decisions in domestic violence custody cases.  It certainly has contributed to a common problem we see that once a court makes a mistake in a domestic violence case there is a pattern of courts failing to use new information to correct the initial errors made by judges and other court professionals.

The criminal court system has received substantial criticism as an increasing number of defendants convicted of murder, some of whom were sentenced to death were later found to be innocent.  The improvement of scientific tests for DNA and other new evidence has helped courts correct errors after homicide convictions.  In context, such wrong convictions appear to be very rare, but are extremely serious because it results in adults losing the rest of their lives.

In contrast, a large majority of domestic violence custody cases are wrongly decided with abusive fathers receiving custody or joint custody at least 70% of the time in contested custody cases.  Even when the safe parent receives custody, the court usually fails to protect the children from unsupervised visitation with the abuser.  In contrast to murder convictions that affect defendant’s adult lives, the wrong decisions in custody cases often destroy or damage children’s entire lives.

Court’s started relying on mental health professionals in domestic violence custody cases at a time when there was no research and many believed domestic violence was caused by mental health problems, substance abuse and the victim’s behavior.  Although all of these assumptions proved wrong, the courts continue to rely on mental health professionals even when there are no legitimate mental health issues in the case.  These professionals rarely are familiar with up-to-date research and often substitute their personal beliefs, biases, myths and stereotypes for the scientific research now available.  Many use a family systems approach which is totally inappropriate in domestic violence cases.  These mistakes lead to the minimization of the importance of domestic violence and unsafe outcomes.

If evaluations had any validity, the “experts” would be able to tell the court how the approaches used in a particular case had worked in other cases.  In fact there is virtually no such research.  Only in the custody courts can “experts” routinely give their opinions when there is no research to support them.  In contrast we have solid research about the harm of taking children from their primary attachment figure or forcing them to live with abusers.  There is no such research about “alienation” which courts tend to pay much more attention to even though the effects on children are minimal or non-existent.  The closest thing we have to research about custody outcomes are the Courageous Kids.  These are children who were sent to live with alleged abusers and have now aged out of the custody order.  The children are now young adults  and describe disastrous experiences as a result of the common practices used in the custody courts.

Similarly, the court has not commissioned studies to see how its decisions in domestic violence custody cases have worked out.  Anecdotally we have seen many cases in which fathers courts found safe were later convicted or otherwise proven to have engaged in physical assault and sexual abuse.  We have also seen many bad outcomes for children forced to live with alleged abusers.  I strongly recommend systematic studies of the outcomes of child custody decisions.

Failure to Make Children’s Safety the First Priority

Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and they have had great success in misleading the courts, legislatures and media.  The men who control “fathers’ rights groups are extremists whose goals include eliminating child support, repealing domestic violence laws and in some cases permitting sex between adults and children.  Obviously, if they said this to courts, they would get nowhere.  Instead they disguise their goals by seeking seemingly fair objectives like “shared custody” “friendly parent” protections and equal treatment of parents.  Who could object to such reasonable requests?

The abusers are saying that when parents come to court for custody and visitation the parents should be treated equally regardless of the past parenting, parenting skills or history of abuse. Of course they don’t mention the last part.  Imagine if a group demanded that everyone receive equal income regardless of their contributions to increasing society’s resources.  Liberals and Conservatives would deride such a demand as communism.  If we would not be willing to divide money without consideration of contribution, why would anyone take seriously a proposal to divide something so much more precious, our children, without consideration of the contributions the parents made to the well-being of the children before coming to court?

In the new book, we present our information based upon our belief that safety of children should be the first priority and arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential should be the next priority.  The public would be shocked that this is not the priority in the present custody court system.  Most states use the best interest of the child standard for custody and visitation decisions, but this tends to be extremely subjective.  Even when legislation favors safety issues, we have found courts often pay more attention to less important factors like parties’ income, remarriage and “friendly parent” provisions.  In fact in states that have mandated friendly parent consideration, children are even more likely to be sent to live with abusers.

Compounding the failure of legislatures and courts to demand safety be the highest priority in custody cases, judges and the professionals they rely on rarely have the training they need to recognize domestic violence or child abuse.  Judge Mike Brigner frequently trains other judges about domestic violence.  In his chapter for the book, he describes how judges often ask him what to do about women who are lying.  When asked what they mean, they refer to women who return to their abuser, withdraw petitions for a protective order, fail to make police complaints or have hospital records.  In fact none of this is probative as battered women often act this way for safety and other reasons particularly when they are still living with their abuser.   Similarly many professionals observe fathers and children interact and if the children show no fear they believe this proves the allegations of abuse are false.  What the children understand is that their father will not hurt them with witnesses present, particularly ones he is trying to impress.  In fact they could be punished if they showed fear.

Male supremacist groups often refer to sexual abuse allegations as the “atomic bomb” of child custody.  In reality when sexual abuse is alleged, even when strong evidence supports the allegation, the alleged abuser usually wins custody.  In research unrelated to custody, it is well established that by the time children reach the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused.  Although the stereotypical rapist is a stranger in a raincoat, most rape and sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows, often the father.  Furthermore children rarely lie about sexual abuse because it is so painful and embarrassing.  Nevertheless, custody courts have proven to be so hostile to allegations of sexual abuse that attorneys regularly discourage these charges because they usually work against the protective mother.  Courts are reluctant to believe a father could do something so heinous, particularly if the father is successful in other parts of his life.

With courts relying on inadequately trained professionals who quickly discount valid abuse complaints based on information that is not probative, there is little chance for them to recognize abuse and therefore be able to protect children.  The research bears this out with courts mishandling contested custody cases (most of which involve abusive fathers) and sending thousands of children to live with abusers.

Connection Between Court Mistakes and Increased Homicide Rate

The media has done a poor job of covering the crisis in the custody court system and particularly the pattern of mistakes that result in thousands of children forced to live with abusers.  Local media cover tragedies involving murders and murder-suicides of family members, but little effort is made to look at the patterns of these tragedies.  On February 11, 2010, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Center for Judicial Excellence issued a press release about two crimes in California where divorcing dads killed eight and nine-month-old babies after the courts ordered visitation despite concerns for the babies’ safety.  Those who follow this issue see frequent stories of abusive fathers killing children, partners and themselves.  Most of the time there is a connection to custody and divorce proceedings, but the media usually fails to emphasize these causes.  The Dastardly Dads blog chronicles these painful cases and in doing so makes it easy to see the patterns of court practices that lead to these tragedies.  Judges and the court professionals they rely on are very aware of research that children do better with both parents in their lives, but often give less consideration to the research that this is not true if one of the parents is abusive.

I want to be careful here because a lot of misinformation has entered the public debate out of ignorance and bias.  We have seen numerous flawed studies reported in the media purporting to find women abuse men with similar frequency as men abuse women.  Closer review of these studies demonstrate a failure to consider the severity of the assault, seriousness of injury, purpose such as self-defense, context (as part of a pattern of controlling behavior) and sexual abuse which is overwhelmingly committed by men. We don’t have definitive research to determine what percentage of domestic violence homicides and child murders are caused by the crisis in the custody court system, but there is research beyond the anecdotal evidence of individual murders and murder-suicides.

Although we know there have been many fathers who used access provided by court orders or the failure of courts to restrain his access, how do we know they would not have killed anyway?  This is similar to issues surrounding protective orders.  Some people say they are only a piece of paper and cannot protect the victim.  This view is supported by too many cases where a woman with a protective order was murdered by her ex-partner.  The research, however demonstrates that although protective orders do not prevent all homicides, women with protective orders are safer than those without this protection.

The government has used a lot of scarce resources to determine the effectiveness of batterer programs, anger management and therapy to prevent domestic violence.  None of these programs has been shown to reduce men’s abuse of women, but unsupported claims continue to be made by those who have a financial stake in these programs.  The only response research has demonstrated to reduce domestic violence is accountability and monitoring.  Custody courts emphasize the promotion of a father’s relationship with the child rather than holding him accountable for his abuse.  They sometimes send abusers to some form of program or therapy.  If this was used for accountability it might be useful, but generally they use the false assumption that completion of the program means he is then safe.  In other words custody courts are using approaches that the research demonstrates work against the safety of women and children.

The modern movement to end domestic violence has resulted in making it easier for women to obtain criminal prosecution, protective orders, divorce, financial support, shelter and community support.  As women had access to these resources and particularly after communities adopted policies to hold men accountable, the domestic violence homicide rate was reduced.  Significantly, those communities that were stricter in enforcing accountability benefitted with even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide.  Although murders of men and women by their intimate partners went down, surprisingly, the number of men’s lives saved was much higher than for the lives of women.  Why would laws and practices designed to protect women have a bigger affect in saving men’s lives?  Before the reforms, some women believed the only way to get away from his abuse was to kill him.  The added resources gave her other ways of leaving him.  This conclusion is supported by research that demonstrates men and women kill their intimate partners for different reasons.  Men kill to maintain control and so no one else can have her and women kill in self-defense and to stop his abuse (there are of course exceptions).  This is supported by the fact that 75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left or is trying to leave.

Abusive men, who believe she has no right to leave were upset at the reforms that made it easier for victims to leave their abusers.  These male supremacists developed tactics to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship.  The cruelest tactic has been to hurt the children.  We see this in the murder or abuse of children by their fathers, but more frequently in fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seeking custody when she tries to leave.  The courts have been slow to recognize or respond to this tactic and instead pressure mothers to keep the father in the children’s lives regardless of his abusiveness.  Instead of pressuring the father to stop his abuse, courts routinely punish mothers for trying to protect the children.  Ironically, in an attempt to keep both parents in the children’s lives, courts often deny children a meaningful relationship with their mother when she continues to believe the father is harming her children.  In almost all of these cases the mother was the primary parent and the safe parent.  As mothers and domestic violence advocates have recognized the harm and unfairness in the present custody court system, more and more mothers are staying with their abusers and accepting his beatings in order to be near their children so they can protect them.  Inevitably, some of these mothers do not survive this decision.

In the batterer classes I teach, we often talk about how boys are taught it is ok for men to abuse women.  The men often object and say they were told not to hit girls.  They are right that boys are not told to abuse women.  Instead they see their father mistreat their mother with no consequences to the father and this gives them the message that society allows men to abuse women.  Children know much more about the father’s abuse in the home than we think they observe so when the custody courts ignore the father’s abuse to give him custody or unsupervised visitation, this reinforces harmful messages.  Children pay much more attention to the behavior they see then what they are told.  In minimizing and failing to recognize the father’s abuse, courts are encouraging men to continue their abuse.  This is especially harmful when abusers successfully manipulate the courts to abuse the mother.  The research demonstrates that abusive men use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners.  By seeking to support fathers’ involvement with their children REGARDLESS OF THEIR HARMFUL BEHAVIOR, the courts are reinforcing harmful attitudes and behaviors.

The flawed and outdated practices used in the custody courts are causing tremendous harm to children and society.  If the bad decisions in these courts did not result in any deaths of mothers and children they should still be reformed.  We have significant anecdotal evidence and research on related issues that makes it likely some of the murders and murder-suicides could be prevented if the custody courts made better use of the up-to-date research now available.  No one  wants to be known as the judge who hurts children or receive publicity when an abuser the judge protected kills the mother and/or children.  I would urge that research be started to determine how often custody court mistakes result in the deaths of the children they are supposed to protect.  In the meantime, I hope judges will stop sending children to live with abusers.

Barry Goldstein is a domestic violence speaker, writer and advocate.  He is co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Technorati Tags:Courts,Custody,Abusers,Domestic,Violence,Connection,Time,Barry,Goldstein,system,cases,ABUSE,CHILD,Therese,Hannah,disciplinary,Canada,citations,myths,gender,bias,children,statistics,homicide,Many,article,role,problems,Lack,Research,Court,assumption,outcome,failure,judges,criticism,death,improvement,context,results,parent,abuser,health,substance,victim,behavior,Although,beliefs,importance,fact,attachment,alienation,attention,Courageous,Kids,result,Make,rights,Instead,treatment,requests,history,Imagine,income,contributions,Liberals,communism,money,contribution,proposal,belief,arrangements,Most,favors,Judge,Mike,Brigner,chapter,hospital,records,father,Male,supports,allegation,stranger,raincoat,life,Rate,crisis,Local,effort,February,National,Coalition,Against,Center,Judicial,Excellence,California,babies,partners,proceedings,Dads,chronicles,misinformation,ignorance,frequency,Closer,injury,purpose,self,defense,percentage,orders,Some,piece,paper,woman,protection,government,management,therapy,response,promotion,relationship,completion,words,movement,prosecution,conclusion,Abusive,victims,tactic,involvement,decision,classes,consequences,message,messages,cost,analysis,HARMFUL,meantime,speaker,writer,Goldsteins,Attorney,Homicides,reductions,Outcomes,decisions,errors,convictions,fathers,assumptions,biases,systems,evaluations,opinions,legislatures,extremists,goals,protections,skills,factors,complaints,allegations,tragedies,members,crimes,policies,attitudes,deaths,thousands,adults,visitation,sexual,parents,women,probative,girls,suicides,batterer,easier

ShareThis