7.10.10

Kentucky Court Whore Judge Rice-Holderfield - FREEDOM OF SPEECH “Come Back With A Warrant”

 Judge Catherine Rice-Holderfield, You have your own blog

Kentucky Court Whore Judge Rice-Holderfield

Thursday, October 7, 2010

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

In case you forgot Judge Catherine Rice-Holderfield, we women got the right to vote and the constitution is not just for men or court whores like you.

We are on to the scam that you run in Kentucky and double dog dare you to jail Kimberly Harris or ANY of her supporters!

We do NOT negotiate with TERRORISTS of any breed....even lowly court whores as you!

You have disgraced the justice system, diminished the integrity of your office and have abused your power. But we are taking back the power today, we have blogged this story out to the outer regions of earth! People in Australia know about your abuses! COME AND GET US ALL!

WE are not afraid of you or your henchman, attorney Casey Hixson. Sue the internet...because this blog, and ALL the others are not going away...and neither are we.

Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield entered Case No. ...10-D-00184-001 Warren Circuit Court: CIR DIV IV FC TWO County: WARREN KY

On the EPO the Judge specifically ordered the cabinet of Child Protection and Permanency to do a complete investigation for delivery during the EPO hearing and all firearms to be confiscated upon service of this Emergency Protective Order.

EPO hearing set for June 7th, 1:00p.m. 2010 On this date the Judge reissued EPO (due to respondent not prepared with witness to move forward)and consolidated with case 00-D-00060-004.(Which I assume is the old divorce case of almost a decade ago)

On June 21st during the EPO hearing Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield interviewed in her chambers (Child Victim)(see attached letter to the Judge from child victim) Approximately 45min. later the Judge continued the hearing . Steve Coffey's attorney Casey Hixson called a Cabinet Worker Rachel Logan to the stand to testify as an Expert Witness. This Social Worker representing the Cabinet for Families and their Children testified she had already closed the investigation without

(1) viewing pictures of the Child's injury's she also testified she did not

(2) contact Police who responded to a 911 call. She testified she went to Greenwood High School where she claimed to have interviewed the Child however, child victim has never attended the High School. He was in Middle School (Drakes Creek Middle) She testified, child victim had been sexting, as if it were fact yet she did not disclose where she had gotten this information. Child victim did not have a cell phone how is this possible? She also testified as if fact that child victim received a nude photo of a girl on his cell phone, again child victim does not have a phone! She went on to talk about "some plan” he and his mom had come up with" yet she did not investigate or ask questions from myself or child victim to report what this plan may have been. Yet she supported there was a plan and the father whom," was the only person she interviewed during this open investigation", testified the plan was " for child victim to get his 14 year old girlfriend pregnant to get out of his Dad's home" When all actuality the plan was a safety plan, which I and school counselor Tracey Downing also did with child victim the numerous times he came to her office to report violence and fears concerning his father.

This is a common plan to incorporate what to do when you are in a violent situation or you fear violence. This is what I would have expected any Cabinet Worker to focus on while interviewing a child who is sharing fears and abuse, and threats of abuse especially with the history of Domestic Violence during the entire Divorce and Custody case years previous. Apparently this Rachel Logan did not investigate to see if there was such a history.(The Judge was very aware of the DV history) Rachel Logan further testified there was another open investigation in Oct. 2009 however, though she was not the Social Worker assigned to this case. She went on to testify the worker said ," child victim said, my Dad hit me in the face but, it did not hurt" Yet the report written by the School Counselor stated child victim was repeatedly slapped in the face and his cheek was swollen and bruised! Though Rachel Logan was permitted to speak freely in open court concerning her opinion and hear-say from another worker the Judge disregarded objections from opposing attorney yet when the Certified documents of the School's reports were asked to be brought into evidence the Judge would not allow them! Rachel Logan finally testified , "There were only two reports and only two open investigations regarding child victim." This was an absolute LIE and the Judge did not require any proof of the Cabinet.

The Cabinet did not provide the Court any written investigation of their findings. The testimony of Rachel Logan with her bias and opinion without sufficiently conducting an investigation by only meeting and talking with the abusive father and his layer was considered by this Judge as fact and did not protect or attempt to protect this Child. Rachel Logan because she did not do what the Judge ordered and because the Judge did not hold her accountable to do a REAL investigation clearly is an outrage and injustice for what was expected to be a hearing for an Emergency Protective Order to provide evidence to validate if abuse/violence were truly committed and if so how to further protect the person at risk of further danger? Rachel Logan and the Judge , the Abusive father along with his Lawyer who is a life-long-family friend of the Judge and their family's were more concerned about trying to focus on the nature of what could this child have been doing to get into trouble instead of the beatings from his angry out of control father! The Judge did GRANT The ORDER OF PROTECTION-(with a copy attached)

You will find the order states the above-named Respondent Steven Coffey be restrained from committing further acts of abuse of threats of abuse.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: For the Petitioner against the above named Respondent in that it was established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an act(s) of domestic violence or ABUSE has occurred and may again occur!

With this established: Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield orders this DVO to expire in 30days! She attached a Treatment Referral Order for the Cabinet to open and investigate and /preventative plan for when DVO expires (1) The Cabinet did not do an investigation when she ordered it for the EPO YET she is entrusting the safety and life into their hands after evidence of abuse that the cabinet was in denial about happening already? What is her motive? Is she being influenced by her long-time family friend Casey Hixson( attorney for the abuser)

"Hand written on her orders : Father and son to get counseling (unspecified)" Then the Father is scratched out. It has just been adjudged and substantiated the father has committed abuse to child and she writes "Father and son to get counseling! " Is she going to do her job and rely on the voice of the child crying out about how frightened he is of this father and how horrible the abuse and threat of abuse is? Why did she not specify how the courts would make the abuser accountable to keep from further abuse?

Posted by DD at 4:48 PM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz

Labels: Bowling Green Kentucky, Court Whore, CPS corruption, Family Court Corruption,Judge Catherine Rice-Holderfield, Kentucky, Media Bias, Warren County Kentucky

Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey -- Judge Catherine Rice Holderfild Circuit Court: CIR DIV IV FC TWO County : Warren KY

Corrupt Judge! Holderfield won't help abused child!

Posted in the Bowling Green Forum

98 Comments

Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield YOU CANT SHUT US ALL UP!!!

Catherine Rice Holderfield 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1643371384&v=wall

American Mothers Political Party Hosted today's Show about Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield 

 The judge is threatening the mom and supporters with jail and there is an upcoming hearing in Bowling Green, KY. October 19th, 2010--

Listen to the show here:  

Listen to internet radio with American Mothers Political Party on Blog Talk Radio

 

Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield Court Whore and the County of Warren, KY

 

We need to free Christian Coffey from foster care and let him be given a voice to decide where he wants to live. We need to spread the word to share this post for everyone to link to this page to show support.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-Abuse-of-Christian-Coffey/146216185389326?ref=nf

"Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey"

This is the story of Christian Coffey and all the abuse he has gone through in his 15 short years of his life. Taylor his beautiful girlfriend wrote a blog to bring awareness to the plight for Christian's safety. You can find a link to that in many places on the page.Christian is back in the hands of the abuser where he was taken out of! Why? Who is going to be his voice?

Website:445 people like this.

"Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey"

See More

Taking a Stand Against Child Abuse

takingastandagainstchildabuse.blogspot.com

This blog has been created in order to help my boyfriend, Christian Coffey, who is mentally and physically abused by his father, Steven H. Coffey. He has cried out to people in the government and multiple people in Bowling Green, KY and it seems they have turned a deaf ear. We have no other choice b...

http://apps.kycourts.net/ContactList/Addresslist.aspx?County=Warren

Catherine Rice Holderfield

Family Court Judge
Warren County Justice Center
1001 Center St., Suite 303
Bowling Green, KY 42101-2192

Warren

(270) 746-7190 (Phone)
(270) 746-7147 (Fax)

Cir. 08, Div. 04 Family

http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/forum.php?id=179073

Read the affidavit from Kimberly Harris Christians mom who is trying to protect him.

Case Number 10-D 00184-001
Place: Warren Circuit Court: CIR DIV IV FC TWO County : Warren KY
Judge Catherine Rice Holderfild


   

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

WARREN CIRCUIT COURT

...FAMILY COURT TWO

CASE NO. 01-CI-00407

 

In the Interest of Christian Coffey, a minor child:

KIMBERLY HARRIS PETITIONER

-vs-

STEVEN COFFEY RESPONDENT

________________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER KIMBERLY HARRIS

________________________________________________________________________

 

COMES NOW the Petitioner, Kimberly Harris, through counsel, and after being duly sworn, states that the following information is true and accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief:

 

__MCE_ITEM__(1) My name is Kimberly Harris and I am the mother of Christian Coffey. I share joint custody of Christian with his father, Steven Coffey.

 

__MCE_ITEM__(2) On April 23, 2004, I agreed to modify custody to permit Steven Coffey to serve as the primary residential custodian of Christian. Since that Order was entered, a change has occurred in the circumstances of Steven Coffey and our son, Christian Coffey, such that a modification of custody is necessary to serve the best interests of our child.

 

__MCE_ITEM__(3) Specifically the changes include but are not limited to the following:

 

__MCE_ITEM__a) A finding by this Court that domestic violence occurred between Steven and Christian and the entry of a Domestic Violence Order that against Steven Coffey for the protection of Christian.

 

__MCE_ITEM__b) The Warren County Attorney's Office has filed charges against Steven Coffey based upon the abuse perpetrated upon Christian. Specifically, the charge is Criminal Assault 4th Degree – Child Abuse and can be found in Warren District Court Case No. 10-M-02048.

 

__MCE_ITEM__c) In order to deal with the abuse and the after-effects, Christian has being seeing a therapist at Centerstone in Nashville, Tennessee. Christian has been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and possible Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms. The psychosocial/environmental problem cited as the root of this diagnosis is the physical abuse from the Christian's father.

 

__MCE_ITEM__d) Christian's therapist has noted some improvement in Christian's levels of fear and anxiety since staying with me and limiting contact with his father. However, Christian is having problems sleeping, eating and dealing with feelings of depression and he is regressing due to the thought of returning home to live with his father.

 

__MCE_ITEM__e) Christian has told me that he lives in fear of his father because his father hits him and spanks him excessively. Christian has informed me that his father has hit him in the face and left bruises. On October 30, 2009, Christian reported to Tracie Downing at Drakes Middle School, that he had been hit in the face by his father. Tracie noted the swelling and bruising in Christian's face and reported the incident to the Department of Protection and Permanency.

 

__MCE_ITEM__f) On May 14, 2010, Christian reported to Tracie Downing that he felt hopeless that he would never get out of his situation; that he feared his father; that he was not sleeping or eating because his stomach was upset; that he was having difficulty going to the bathroom; and that he was considering running away because he was living in such fear of his father. Again this incident was reported to the Department of Permanency and Protection.

 

__MCE_ITEM__g) On May 22, 2010, Christian was beaten with a belt during a time which Christian had urinary tract infection. The belting resulted in extremely firm contact to Christian's lower back, buttocks and back of his legs. Since that time, Christian has reported pain in his lower back and pain during urination. This is complicated by a birth defect in Christian's kidneys that could be impacted by a severe trauma to these areas. Christian is currently receiving medical treatment as a result of this incident.

 

__MCE_ITEM__h) Christian has informed me and that his father calls him an idiot, tells and tells him that he is worthless and stupid.

 

__MCE_ITEM__i) Christian's father claims to have a problem with Christian and Christian's girlfriend in that he has unsuccessfully tried to prevent them from seeing each other and talking. The basis for Steven trying to prevent contact between Christian and his girlfriend is that he claims he is trying to prevent them from engaging in sexual activities. Steven's admitted method for dealing with this situation is belting Christian. I can handle Christian and address these issues appropriately.

 

__MCE_ITEM__j) During the time that Christian has been in my custody, he has consistently had panic attacks after speaking with his father on the phone.

 

__MCE_ITEM__(4) Christian's response to Steven's methods of discipline is highly unpredictable. Christian could react violently toward Steven, which could result in serious physical injury to Christian and/or Steven. Christian could also be overwhelmed by his feelings of depression and helplessness and he could cause harm to himself.

 

__MCE_ITEM__(5) The present environment at Steven's home endangers seriously Christian's physical, mental, moral, and emotional health and I firmly believe that if my son is forced to return to or remain at Steven's home, he, Christian, may be severely injured, physically and emotionally.

 

__MCE_ITEM__(6) I do not believe Steven should be allowed visitation until anger management classes are completed and at that time the visitation should begin with supervised sessions.

 

FURTHER the Affiant sayeth not

American Mothers Political Party Show TODAY! Thurs.10-7-10. Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 10/7/2010 5:00 PM   

Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2010/10/07/still-standing


American Mothers Political Party Blog Talk Radio

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 childcustody 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!

CONTACT US: chairperson@americanmotherspolitical.org

www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org

 

Part Two: Teri Stoddard and her claim to fame in Father's Rights circles

Source Glenn’s Cult

Part Two: Teri Stoddard and her claim to fame in Father's Rights circles

As promised more information on Teri - the Queen of Equality. Well she got that half right ;-)

So on to her resume. She now works for S.A.V.E Services which is online at SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

Now this all look peachy doesn't it? A nice new organization to help those victims of abuse. Well dig into it and it does not look so peachy after all. Who (or what) is SAVE Services? Looking at the domain registration shows that Natasha Spivack is the owner (registrant) of saveservices.org. Her email is through encount.com.

Screen shots below in case the owner is mysteriously changed or hidden (and these are saved in case anyone would like them for their own use):

What is encount.com and who is Natasha Spivack?

Eeeny meeeeny miney moe - Encount.com wins first exposure. Encount.com is a mail order bride company run by Natasha Spivack. This is quite interesting given the recent attention that has been made to regulating these types of businesses.

Now why is Natasha Spivack so important? Well it seems that Ms. Spivack was the recent litigant in a case against her and her company Encounters International by one of her former female clients.

Read about one of her male clients here (he was oh so shy yet this was his third marriage?).

Or you can read about Nataliya Fox here and how she was lied to, battered, and traumatized not just by her abusive ex husband, but also by the very organization who should have helped her. Link to appeal from that court case is HERE. Another story about this travesty-turned-fair is HERE. Notice that the case against thealleged abuser was dropped after he was ordered to attend a batterers intervention class in order to have his record expunged AND he claims that Nataliya attacked him. He also claims she was "nutty" and "a fruitcake." Hmmmmmm makes you think doesn't it especially in light of the recent posts on Teri's Single Parent Group on Yahoo?

Now is it just me or is it seemingly odd that a woman who was found guilty and ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to another woman has now started an organization for the falsely accused? And that Teri our own Queen of Equality is helping her in that endeavor?

Now more postings will follow but I think this is enough for now. R tells me she is constantly researching this issue so as to make all of this fair and impartial (instead of the one-sided affair that Teri like to present).

More to come......

Posted by Glenn's Cult? at 9:01 AM

Labels: Encounters International, Natasha Spivack, SAVE, SAVE Services, Teri Stoddard, Terri,Terri Stoddard

Part One: Teri Stoddard and her claim to fame in Father's Rights circles

Source Glenn’s Cult

I have been promising this article and plan to deliver several installments. I must first thank the woman whose diligence and persistence to help me has definitely paid off. I do not think I would have been able to collect half of what she has given to me any time soon. These big old hooves get in the way of typing really well and I usually use a speech to text program :-). Thank you again R for all of your hard work to researching and exposing this for all of us.

First we must ask who is Teri? Well according to her facebook page this is what she writes:

Queen of (parental) Equality: a children's advocate, day care provider turned journalist. Working for family law reform to bring due process and abolish gender-biased abuse policies. SHARED PARENTING WORKS! Free parenting plans below.

Now that is confusing to me since she has posted these kinds of things on other email groups:

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_10.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_6812.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_1470.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_641.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_6288.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_5424.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_358.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_1907.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_7891.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_5605.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_9377.html

Now I can understand a little bit - possibly Teri WANTS women to be subservient to men? Or does she WANT to be in control of other women?

Well we will continue to explore these as options. However let's see what her parenting experience entails:

If you read this email carefully you will see that she has four children by four different men. Hmmmm Teri think you could have picked any better? Maybe then you could have gone the route of what you preach. Oh yeah I know!!!! It is do as I say, not as I do.

We have another prime example of this below:

And now we have where this anger towards women mothers has come from:

You see how she has to start getting digs on the mother of "her" grandchild? Does it get worse? You bet!

She is on a single mothers group and she whines on and on about how her son is so wonderful and the mother of her grandchild and the "other grandmother" are so awful and terrible. That group did not buy into her BS and Teri eventually left that group.

She has to post about how long she has gone without sex:

Wow oh wow! Six whole years as of 2002? Wonder if any of those lonely father's rights guys has indulged her (see earlier posts on here entitled real play or role play for that answer)?

So really what is it that has got her so upset that she flips from being a normal woman who was spurned and whose kids are not cared for by dad (read earlier picture about child support/welfare) to this crazed fanatic for men's/father's rights?

Now she is writing articles for the Examiner (claims she is a reporter now because she does this - hey I am a reporter too) :-). She also works for a nanny service (maybe this service should be warned?) and newly added to her resume is S.A.V.E. Services for Falsely Accused. R researched this issue for me (thank you again R) and with that we move to our second post.

Here is a sneak peek at what provoked R to forward all of her information to me before she was completely done with her research.

Notice the male bashing subject line (as if having a speech or protest against abuse could be considered male bashing?):

Posted by Glenn's Cult? at 9:00 AM

Labels: Teri Stoddard, Terri, Terri Stoddard

5 comments:

Teri Stoddard said...

Claudine, you have broken the Yahoo group rules by posting messages outside the group. Shame on you.

And how stupid can you be? You think I had to leave the group? I own it! hahahaha

I feel sorry for you. You must be a miserable person to lie about others in this way. You're sick.

I have never favored one gender over the other. Do you not understand the term "equal"? Guess not.

S.A.V.E. helps victims (of both genders) as well as those who are falsely accused (again, both genders). Sorry to disappoint you; but I'm not the monster you seem to think I am.

October 06, 2010 11:26 PM

Glenn's Cult? said...

I have allowed this one comment even though you did not follow my rules. You have your space with your group, I have mine here. Oh and for the record, I am not Claudine. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

I simply posted the information about who owns that website and the irony in the fact that a woman who was found guilty in a civil trial and was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because she refused to be honest with a dv victim is now running a website geared towards weakening the assistance available to women?

Not going anywhere. I am not that is.

Oh and by the way how is Ray L? :-) You two still good friends?

October 07, 2010 12:01 AM

Glenn's Cult? said...

Oh and having read the entire appeals opinion in the Spivack case, I find that Spivack (or her lawyers or all of them) attempted to do several things.

First they attempted to paint Nataliya Fox as a criminal by showing documents from the Ukraine and Turkey.

Second they attempted to say she tried to defraud the INS with the change in her application (from marrying one man to marrying Fox).

They then tried to get credit for the settlement offered by Fox in the judgment against them.

You should really read the entire appeal. It is somewhat long but even with skimming it you get a real good picture of the character of the individuals involved.

October 07, 2010 12:21 AM

Teri Stoddard said...

Natasha's female client committed fraud. Their side only won because they had more money. Of course you would never believe that, because in your reality only men are bad, right?

You have so much energy to put towards this...why not use it for good? Stop the gender bashing and treat everyone equally. It's really not that difficult.

Now stop stealing content from my group and stop lying about me. I've written about my past, yet you never seem to get it right.

October 07, 2010 3:59 AM

Glenn's Cult? said...

That is the answer for everything now isn't? They won because they had more money. I guess the pictures shown (there must have been pictures right, otherwise how could the doctor testimony been accepted?) and that silly doctor - Nataliya must have put all those hand marks and bruises on her body? And I am sure all those jurors are just so misguided also? All TWELVE of them voted that Natasha was wrong. And the trial court judge - he was blinded too. And let's not forget the appeals court judges. No dissenting judges in that bunch. If Natasha is doing such a great job with her clients you would think she would want a better quality person than Nataliya for these men, if what YOU say is true about her. After all you are always right aren't you Teri?

October 07, 2010 7:06 AM

Post a Comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

AOC & Marin Court Crimes Protest Update

Click here for audio interview The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals - Legislative Reforms Needed

WHERE:

Marin County Civic Center - Under (2nd) Court Arch
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903

Driving Directions

WHEN:
Tuesday October 12, 2010 from 8:00 AM to 1:30 PM PDT
Add to my calendar

FAMILY COURT IN THE NEWS

Click on the link below to listen to  CJE Executive Director Kathleen Russell's 9-minute interview with Edward O'Brien that aired yesterday on Montana Public Radio!
Kathleen Russell Discusses the Family Court Crisis on Montana Public Radio

AOC & Marin Court
Crimes Protest

Greetings!
As we approach the date of the protest -- just six days away -- we wanted to update you on some new developments. Please check the Event Homepage for background information about the protest.     
12:30PM PRESS CONFERENCE SPEAKERS
Speakers at the 12:30pm press conference will include:
1) Robin Yeamans, Appellate Specialist & Family Law Attorney from San Jose - Robin will speak directly about the importance of the destroyed documents to ongoing family law cases.
2) Assemblymember Jim Beall (D- San Jose) & other state lawmakers have been invited to speak as co-authors of the Joint Legislative Audit request for a state investigation of the Marin and Sacramento Family Courts (pending confirmation)
3) Barbara Kauffman, Marin Family Law Attorney - Barbara will speak briefly about the Marin Family Court problems that prompted the audit, and the significance of the document destruction.
*Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence will open up and moderate the press conference.


*SPECIAL AIRFARE RATES TO SAN FRANCISCO:
Check Virgin America for cheap fare sales from the San Diego and L.A areas to San Francisco ($139 Round Trip). Let us know if you need a free place to spend the night.
EVENING PICKET 5:00PM-9:00PM
Please also be sure to sign up to picket and flyer with us that evening if you cannot join us for the morning picket, or if you cannot stop by during your lunch break. The third Gubernatorial Debate between candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown will be held just down the road at San Rafael's Dominican University at 6:30pm on Tuesday night. This presents us with another great opportunity to educate the public and the media about the family court crisis that is plaguing California. Tuesday night's debate is the ONLY Nationally-televised debate!
Please be sure to REGISTER ONLINE by clicking on the link below to sign up for a shift whenever you can join us on Tuesday October 12th!
All registration information is COMPLETELY confidential and will not appear anywhere on the web.
Reporters are asking us how many people we expect, so please use a pseudonym if you must, but stand and be counted if you plan on attending!

Click here to register

More details will be sent to you as we get closer to the Day of Action, so please stay tuned. Be sure to come to San Rafael on October 12th, and bring 5 friends with you. Thank you for your continued activism and support!

Click here to view the event homepage

What: Protest & Press Conference
When: Tuesday October 12
Where: Marin County Civic Center - Under (2nd) Court Arch 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael

This day of action will include the following:
8:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

6.10.10

Mothers March in Washington DC

 

Dear Friends,

1. The Mothers March in Washington was fabulous!  We assembled in front of the U.S. Department of Justice with our signs, banners, new Safe Child Coalition flag and white Mothers of Lost Children T shirts.  Karen Anderson, Executive Director of CA Protective Parents Association, gave the Attorney General's public relations officer a packet explaining the family court situation and documentation of the destruction of evidence during an audit by Marin County family court. We then marched to the U. S. Senate buildings where we fanned out in teams to attend appointments with U. S. Senate aides. We all had the same request: Congressional hearings. The aides were appalled at what we told them. We ended the day with a wonderful photo at the Sewall Belmont house,  headquarters of the suffragists  a century ago. 

The next day we stood vigil in front of the White House for an hour before joining the huge One Nation demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial. Thanks  to everyone who came, and everyone who supported us in so  many ways.  We believe our two events this year will have historic significance.  Pictures and press clips will be posted soon.

What can you do to help now? Follow up is crucial. Please write a letter to your two U.S. Senators with the same request:  we need Congressional hearings.  They need to hear directly from their constituents.  Locate your Senators at www.senate.gov. Faxed personal letters are more significant than emails. If you decide to remain anonymous, tell the Senator you fear judicial retaliation and must use a pseudonym.   

       The Honorable ________
       Re: Request for Congressional hearings on the failure of family court to protect

            children

       Dear Senator ________:
       I am writing to urge you to schedule Congressional hearings on the failure of     

       family courts to protect children, and the retaliation against mandated reporters

       and parents who report child sexual and physical abuse. The scope of this

       problem is staggering:  nationally, over 1000 children per week are placed with  

       their identified batterers or molesters by family courts.www.leadershipcouncil.org

       Children are being maimed and killed in completely preventable tragedies.  As your

       constituent, I want you to know this is happening in our state. It has happened

       to my children.

2. Press Conference at Marin Courthouse on Tuesday Oct 12.  Center for Judicial Excellence invites you to  a picket and press conference one week from today. More than 1,000 flyers have been distributed in Marin, San Francisco and Alameda counties in the past week by three great moms.

You can register by clicking this link, then clicking the button at the bottom of the page that says "Register." Your name will not show publicly. If you are bringing any friends or family or guests, please be sure to add them to your registration. 
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=me65kybab&oeidk=a07e311awpu5d1273b5

Let me know if you need a place to stay if you are coming from out of town.

Connie 916-233-8381

Forward email

CA Protective Parents Association | P. O. Box 15284 | Sacramento | CA | 95851

5.10.10

Is Psychology a Science? HELL NO!!

Read more here- Source:

Excerpt:

What Is Science?

In order to consider whether psychology is a science, we must first define our terms. It is not overarching to say that science is what separates human beings from animals, and, as time goes by and we learn more about our animal neighbors here on Earth, it becomes increasingly clear that science is all that separates humans from animals. We are learning that animals have feelings, passions, and certain rights. What animals do not have is the ability to reason, to rise above feeling.

Science's goal is to create reasonable explanations (theories) to describe reality – theories that rely, not on feelings or passions, but on evidence. Science defines “evidence” in a special way that will seem rather strict to someone only familiar with the legal definition. To science, evidence is gathered and evaluated (and sometimes discarded) according to some rigid rules, rules meant to assure that a scientific theory reflects reality to the best of our ability.

How strict are science's rules of evidence? Well, let's first compare science to law. The legal definition of evidence is (as one example) a set of observations that appear to associate a particular person with a particular event. Typically, legal proceedings begin with an investigation meant to collect evidence, followed by a trial that establishes whether that evidence meets a criterion – “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings, and “according to the preponderance of evidence” in civil proceedings (in the US).

Introduction | What Is Science? | What Is Psychology?
Present-day Human Psychology | The Architecture of Science | Psychologists on Psychology
Conclusion | Further Reading |

The point here is that legal evidence is not remotely scientific evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn't use sloppy evidentiary standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and scientific theories never become facts. This is why the oft-heard expression “proven scientific fact” is never appropriate – it only reflects the scientific ignorance of the speaker. Scientific theories are always theories, they never become the final and only explanation for a given phenomenon.

As to the ever-popular expression “scientific law,” this is often an earnest effort by scientists to bridge the gap between the level of certainty required in science and that accepted in ordinary life. In fact and strictly speaking, there are no scientific laws, only theories about which we are very certain, like entropy and gravity, which, if they were to be tersely expressed in everyday language, would read: “Eventually it will break, and when it does, it is going to fall.”

About scientific evidence, philosopher John Stuart Mill said, “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.” This saying aptly summarizes the difference between scientific evidence and every other kind of evidence, and it dramatizes the difference between science and ordinary human thinking.

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations. This may sound unnecessarily strict, but it is necessary for science to accomplish what it does. To demonstrate this, here is a hypothetical conversation between a psychic wannabe (PW) and a scientist (S):

PW: “I successfully predicted 100 coin tosses, therefore I am psychic.”

S: “How many total coin tosses were there?”

PW: “200”.

S: “So you guessed half correctly, and half incorrectly, yes?”

PW: “Yes – isn't that amazing?”

S: “No, not really. It is the outcome predicted by chance.”

(a day goes by ...)

PW: “I correctly guessed eight coin tosses in a row! Now that's proof that I'm psychic!”

S: “How many total coin tosses this time?”

PW: “Umm, 256.”

S: “With that many coin tosses, eight sequential correct guesses has a probability of ½ of coming about by chance. You might be psychic, but there is a much more likely explanation – chance.”

This example highlights a cardinal rule of science: Always consider alternative explanations, never accept anything at face value.

In everyday life, people are regularly taken in by con men who rely on public ignorance of reason and science. Here's an example – you receive a mailing from someone who wants to be your financial advisor. He predicts that the stock market will fall (or rise) during the next month. At the end of the month, his prediction turns out to be correct. Then, for six months straight, he mails you a prediction, and each prediction turns out to be correct. In a quick calculation you realize you would have made several million dollars by following his advice.

Having “proven” his abilities, the financial advisor now wants you to give him control of your portfolio. His is the best performance you have ever seen, he obviously has special skills, what do you do? Well, hopefully you follow the cardinal rule:Always consider alternative explanations.

Here is a very likely alternative explanation – the “financial wizard” is a con man, a hustler. Here is how this well-known con works:

  1. At the beginning of the six-month period, the "wizard" mails a prediction to a list of 16,384 people. He tells half the people the market will rise, the other half that it will fall.
  2. At the end of the first month, he drops half the names from the list (those who got an incorrect prediction) and mails a new prediction to the remaining names.
  3. He repeats this procedure for six months, each month dropping half the names and keeping those that got a correct prediction.
  4. At the end of six months, he has a list of 256 very hot prospects, each of whom has gotten a seemingly miraculous run of correct predictions, each of whom might just sign up for his "services," each of whom is about to be swindled.

Read more here- Source:

What Is Psychology?

Blurring of research, diagnosis and therapy.

· TS002851

Walter Freeman performing a lobotomy

In the 1950s, at the height of psychology's public acceptance, neurologist Walter Freeman created a surgical procedure known as "prefrontal lobotomy." As though on a quest and based solely on his reputation and skills of persuasion, Freeman singlehandedly popularized lobotomy among U.S. psychologists, eventually performing about 3500 lobotomies, before the dreadful consequences of this practice became apparent.

Introduction | What Is Science? | What Is Psychology?
Present-day Human Psychology | The Architecture of Science | Psychologists on Psychology
Conclusion | Further Reading | Feedback

At the height of Freeman's personal campaign, he drove around the country in a van he called the "lobotomobile," performing lobotomies as he traveled. There was plenty of evidence that prefrontal lobotomy was a catastrophic clinical practice, but no one noticed the evidence or acted on it. There was — and is — no reliable mechanism within clinical psychology to prevent this sort of abuse.

These examples are part of a long list of people who have tried to use psychology to give a scientific patina to their personal beliefs, perhaps beginning with Francis Galton (1822-1911), the founder and namer ofeugenics. Galton tried (and failed) to design psychological tests meant to prove his eugenic beliefs. This practice of using psychology as a personal soapbox continues to the present, in fact, it seems to have become more popular.

 

Facilitated Communication

This bogus field sprang into existence, fueled by the wish that specific disabled (autistic, severely retarded) people might be able to communicate with their loved ones after all. It purports to allow communication with a disabled person through the agency of a facilitator, someone who typically holds a writing implement (or operates a keyboard) simultaneously with the disabled person, and the two together create a written account of the disabled person's otherwise inaccessible experiences. Frequently, the “communication” seems to reveal that the disabled person is being abused horribly by parents or caretakers. This in turn has resulted in bogus legal actions, spurred by prosecutors who think psychology is a science.

Was this set of beliefs tested and shown to be flawed in a scientific study? No. Was it called into question because of the utterly fantastic content of the “communications”? No again. How then was the fraud uncovered? Well, the PBS television program “Frontline” showed up and taped some typical clinical practice, revealing some aspects of the practice anyone not brain-damaged should have been able to notice, such as the fact that the disabled person was often looking at the ceiling while supposedly co√∂perating in keyboard communication, a behavior that requires one to look at the keyboard at least occasionally. The facilitator, of course, was looking intently at the keyboard.

And finally, after evidence of the bogus nature of both the practice and the communications was demonstrated, was the field abandoned? Of course not – it is still widely practiced, with the difference that TV cameras are now typically excluded from the clinics.

Recovered Memory Therapy

This doesn't mean psychology lacks theories. It means the theories, when applied to humans, either cannot be tested in a scientifically rigorous way, or the tests fail without anyone noticing or caring. This explains why psychology's frequent theoretical failures tend to be discussed in a courtroom rather than a laboratory or a scientific journal.

As with most professions, scientists have a private language, using terms that seem completely ordinary but that convey special meaning to other scientists. For example, when a scientist identifies a field as a "descriptive science," he is politely saying it is not a science.

Present-day Human Psychology

Over the history of the DSM and as a result of valiant efforts, this "bible" of clinical psychology has come to define more and more conditions as evidence of mental illness. As an example, in the current edition, the following conditions are defined as mental illnesses:

· Stuttering

· Spelling Disorder

· Written Expression Disorder

· Mathematics Disorder

· Caffeine Intoxication/Withdrawal

· Nicotine use/Withdrawal

· Sibling Rivalry Disorder

· Phase of Life Problem

Putting aside for the moment the nebulous “phase of life problem,” excuse me? – “Sibling rivalry” is now a mental illness? Yes, according to the current DSM/ICD. And few are as strict about spelling as I am, but even I am not ready to brand as mentally ill those who (frequently) cannot accurately choose from among “site,” “cite” and “sight” when they write to comment on my Web pages. As to “mathematics disorder” being a mental illness, sorry, that just doesn't add up.

 

REST OF ARTICLE Read more here- Source: