Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Parental Alienation

NY, Nassau County: (another) Alienating Ex-Wife gets Jail-Threat Therapy; sounds like forgotten “Unalienable Rights” need a Resurrection?

with 2 comments

Wonder when this was re-written as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all MEN ~ at least ~ are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights. . .. that among these are ETERNALLY UNALIENATED RELATIONSHIPS,** LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS . . . . .
**with the “fruit of the womb” of alienated relationships with (adult) ex-wives, i.e., namely, their kids.

THIS PROMPTED MY POST:

Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)

Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father

THIS JUNE 2010 ARTICLE FROM the NY LAW JOURNAL IS BELOW, BUT WHILE READING IT, CONSIDER:

I lay THREE challenges before readers:

  • (1) Find me ONE remarried FATHER who was jailed, or threatened with it — and lectured — for doing the exact same thing to his wife, and for the same reason. And where a judge cited in the reasons for his/her opinion, that the father “smirked in the courtroom.” I open up the contest nationwide, not just NY, although how’s about in this same county?

  • (2) Find me how this same judge ruled on other similar cases.

  • (3) Understanding that these policies supporting and promoting fatherhood, of which mandated shared-parenting policies(etc.) are but one arm — were pushed through Congress as a solution to the LOW-income father issue, the female-headed (poor) household, PWORA WELFARE REFORM (and I’ve posted some of the Congressional transcripts surrounding it on my blog, too) — and is obviously affecting some very NOT-POOR households (except to the extent they are drained of finances through legal fees or child support rulings) why should this case, here in Nassau County, profit from that philosophy, and WHEN will these policies, based on the erroneous target population (expanded to everyone with a Y chromosome and offspring under 18 years old) be retracted?

    • The father here spent over $100K on legal fees, and won,  to express how hurt he was from being deprived of a relationship with his kids for (was it, a period of six WEEKS?) ?  Or was that just the exception to the rule?  Because the policy IS part of welfare reform, child support collection, and based on the theory that Dads who have more contact with their kids will do better at paying child support.
    • NOTE;  “3” is an essay question and rhetorical, obviously…

(“EXTRA CREDIT” — since our whole nation, almost, is either being taught, or teaching, or setting the national educational curriculum womb to tomb and how to marry, not have sex before it, divorce, co-parent, stop violence against women, intervene with batterers, supervise visitation, facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to their kids, support children, coordinate parents, counsel parents, manage high-conflict parents, promote mental health and evaluate the psychological health of everyone who is NOT a psychologist — I figured I’d get in there too…And put readers back to school ‘Extra Credit’ if someone is motivated to do the background on THIS case (i can’t..).

You can’t afford the time either?  Got Job?  OK, then (if you’re not in a job in one of the above professions), then you are paying for the rest of us to be threatened by judges for our bad attitudes towards our exes — OR, to utilize judges to communicate this threat to ex-wives, or ex-girlfriends.  (For a great role model, take Mel Gibson…)…  Seriously — if you have a “job” (i.e., pay taxes) you ARE funding these theories, and the courts.  JUDGES are public employees, right?  As are everyone it takes to run the family court business revolving door.  But, ab ove and beyond that obvious function, and ALL the functions of running courthouses, there is ALSO a stream of federal funding to the Judicial Council of California to push policies that this is a prime example of.  Anyone tracking those funds?  Doubt it.  (See bottom of my last post — it’s primarily what this blog is about, too…)  OK, so EXTRA CREDIT would be:

  • Find how the ex-wife’ attorney’s track record goes. . . The wussy (?)(or — sensible; after all, he may have to stand in front of same judge in other cases?) (or, threw the case?) mother’s attorney didn’t dare express indignation and outrage before a judge, but just, in the press, said:
    • Ms. R.’s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to last week’s missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a perfect game.

      “I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he’s just made a good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case,” Rieger said. “That’s why there’s an Appellate Division. I think he just did not accurately assess my client.

       

  • Find how the father’s attorney’s track record goes. Too.  I comment on the both of them in the body of the article, below.  But attorneys have clients.  Clients have case histories.  Case histories have a custody-switch factor, a case docket, at times.

 

REALLY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS — BUT

(don’t smirk) ONLY IF ASSERTED:

Here’s part of the original, the wording of which has been forgotten. Or, which, the inclusion of men of color and women of all colors, in this, never was meant to happen . . . .

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

New Version:

A father’s, at least, UNALIENABLE RIGHT NOT TO BE ALIENATED

(and, don’t smirk in court, or else…)

Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father

Mark Fass

New York Law Journal

June 08, 2010

A Long Island, N.Y., judge has sentenced a woman to six weekends in jail for repeatedly undermining her ex-husband’s relationship with their two daughters.

Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.

Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:

Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation?  One is clear-cut.  The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities.  Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader.  Excuse me, “mental health professional,”   a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).

What kind of world do we (as a culture) want?  One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ??  Guess which one you have here?

 

Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it.  However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way.  I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate.  So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.

 

Ross held Ms. R. in civil contempt and ordered her to report to the Nassau County Correctional Facility every other weekend this summer.

Her term was to have begun on Friday, but was temporarily stayed pending appeal by a judge from the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, on Thursday.

FIRST OF ALL — that’s shock therapy, and a trait in bringing P.O.W. into compliance.  You can find this treatment listed in places where a batterer is compared to a POW captor.  One reason women coming out of that (I’m not saying that the woman in this case was…) have PTSD like veterans have PTSD.  And why going through the courts exacerbates this — same treatement.  Repeated, chronic threats to one’s integrity, and safety, every time one goes into court.

Comments:  Penal law (criminal) has sentencing guidelines and limits.  Civil law (torts, breaches of contract) have specific remedies.  But, not well-known by the laypeople, FAMILY LAW is a different beast, and the contempts are to bring a party into compliance with a desired condition, and can persist until the desired (by individual judge) state is obtained.  So, see the problem with that?  Suppose the desired state is a state of mind?  Now, that’s trouble, spelled out. . .. (I think the post I discussed this, with my non-legally-trained, but trying to grasp concepts-brain, was the one about an alarm system that failed, burning down a warehouse.  The alarm system company was fined to the full amount (million$$) — because the civil law provides for this, and a contract was involved.  When will we learn that marriage is not a real CONTRACT like that, with spelled out terms?  (Enlighten me legally, if I’m missing something — such as options — in this statement).

“, The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.

“The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant’s parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of ‘good faith,’ and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father.”

This judge is indignant, and has the flourish (the first one being “replete with..”) to express it.  HE TOO assigns motive.  Of course, judges are supposed to have some judgement, but this is certainly an interpretation, and throughout, states, and restates, her intents.  Mind-readers!

I wonder — do criminals at their sentencing for other than thought- or intent- or visitation-crimes, get the extra lectures to go with it?

The extraordinary hearing to determine whether Ms. R. should be held in contempt for violating the couple’s stipulation of settlement began in May 2009 and stretched over 23 days of hearings over the next nine months.

During the hearing, Mr. R. testified** to dozens of occasions in which his ex-wife either interfered with his visitation rights or purposefully alienated the children from him

“The hearing” ??  Which of the above 23 days?  Was any of her testimony heard during this time, or was she able to rebutt any of it?  Wouldn’t THAT be a set of transcripts . . . . .  I know how family law hearings go; I was accused of this also, but did not interfere ONCE with custody by even a few hours — I wasn’t born yesterday. ….  If an adjustment was made up an hour, I was requested to extend the pickup an hour.  Then I was ordered to switch days of pickup, or had them cancelled on short notice, while children lived with me, and this many times compromised work, as moms can testify.  This case, however, already had a stipulation.

“purposefully” entails assigning motive.  Was wife allowed to cross-examine him on any of this?  Was the interference documented and evidence for it found?  Where is her testimony — was hits a hearing, or an interrogation?

“Interfering with his visitation rights OR purposefully alienated the children.”  It is clear to me that the real indignation is over the alienation, not the cutting off of visitation.  And again (readers), (assuming some are left!), I CHALLENGE you to find one MAN lectured like this for doing the EXACT same thing to a noncustodial Mom.  While you’re looking, go to http://www.rightsformothers.com and scroll down far enough to get her story (hasn’t seen the son for YEARS, wages garnished to below housing, while working FT).  Where is HER indignant judge?

The judge described about a dozen such incidents or patterns in his eight-page decision.

In the winter of 2007, for example, Ms. R. prevented Mr. R. from seeing his daughters for six weeks, Ross wrote.

I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant >>emotionally<< related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents’ presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff’s driveway,” the judge wrote.

https://i1.wp.com/farm3.static.flickr.com/2247/1560445824_b28f6b8e0b.jpg

 

Perhaps she’d seen his emotional performances before, including in a courtroom, and wasn’t as impressed as the judge. MORAL? Men can be soulful in court — it indicates sincerity, because we all “know” men are rational and logical, and when they truly DO emote, then what they are emoting about must be genuine, or why would their pain so move them to be soulful (in court)? Women, however, if remembering a different version of events, are warned that smirking at it could cost them custody — THEIR emotion must be in synche with the court’s emotions, or they’re screwed.

If true (presumably it is), that was sure mean. But, the point should the contempt of court orders re visitation, and should’ve been left at that. He is getting even now, more than, so far. And while I’m sure the pain (including humiliation, probably with another man inside, another factor, I bet) at this event was likely genuine, Mr. R. — UNlike many others, who will be affected by this decision, and the message it sends, I bet — many of us do not have $134,000 to lose, or at all, with which to console ourselves. With that amount of cash, he could I bet find another woman, maybe even make some more babies. There’s lots of them (count me out) around . . ..

MY point is — does this ever go the same way, with a different gender? Consider Joyce Murphy, who went to jail for interfering with custody when the courts wouldn’t do anything a bout her daughter being molested. She lost custody (threat therapy carried out). later, the same dude, not confronted and in fact one the first time, went on to molest some other children, whose parents DID report, and eventually she got her daughter back, though I bet not with an “oops” or apology from the court.

We DO have internet, and we ARE aware of other court cases around the country. I believe it’s time to shelve some of these theories– but since the courts don’t, I will again (below) review the Declaration of Independence. Certain rights are UNALIENABLE — and when a pattern of tyranny rules in one area of government, or throughout it, we have a right to change it, though not for a light reason. . . . Just a little reminder: The signers of that declaration pledged their honor, their fortunes, and their lives to this cause, and many of them lost all three. Well, maybe not the first one, in the long run.

Mr. R. also testified that Ms. R. consistently scheduled theater outings and social activities with her children so that they would conflict with his visitation, thereby putting him in the position of either consenting to a missed visit or risking disappointing his daughters.

Sounds like a play-book for many mothers I know who haven’t seen their kids in MONTHS, or YEARS.

The “crescendo” of Ms. R.’s contempt involved false accusations of sexual abuse against Mr. R., the judge wrote.

“Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child,” Ross wrote. “This report was not made in ‘good faith’ — rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant.”

In addition to the contempt finding and the temporarily stayed jail sentence, Ross ordered a hearing to consider a change of custody and to hear Mr. R.’s application for more than $134,000 in attorney fees. Those hearings were postponed pending Ms. R.’s appeal.

Ms. R.’s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to last week’s missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a perfect game.

Maybe this (male) attorney didn’t pick up on the emotional overtones?? . . . . .

This judge has threatened this woman, and made an example of her, and lectured her in court; presuming the sexual abuse allegations to be false, and intended to make an example of her. Her attorney, seeing this — that comment is called Damage Control. He’s on the losing side and didn’t even support her in print, morally, at all.

“I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he’s just made a good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case,” Rieger said. “That’s why there’s an Appellate Division. I think he just did not accurately assess my client.”

Stanley Hirsch, also of Garden City, represented Mr. R.

I’m very hopeful that this case will be some type of warning to those who don’t have the children’s best interests at heart when they conduct themselves with their spouses,” Hirsch said. “It has great significance to my client, but I think it has a terrific overall impact on people who are going through a divorce and not getting along and involving the children in their disputes.”

 

Well, either the judge missed a pitch, or he sent a message. I’m going with the latter. Of course, the winning attorney was smart enough to put this in the plural, and keeping up the pretense that this is really a gender-neutral issue. That’s why the same people pushing “fatherhood” push this. (See my last post, the bottom section)

So, Yeah, we (noncustodial, now, mothers) got that. Loud and clear. Take your kids OUT of acttivities developing them personally, and don’t smirk in the courtroom, particularly in response to any lies. [FYI, that’s good advice].

Now get this — we haven’t forgotten the Declaration of Independence, or men, women and children who DIED ~ ~ and lives squandered ~ because of this pushing “parental alienation” and yet not enforcing this equally. And family law is NOT working for women attempting to protect themselves and their children from danger, which they have a right to — it’s under UNALIENABLE . . .

You want to go the “how dare you alienate a man from his “seed” theme (that’s the Biblical terminology for children)? And get the whole society and relatives wrapped up in it? Because while there are throwaway spouses, but having impregnated a woman puts a permanent bond between the man and his kids — and NOT the mother and his kids? We could just go back to sharia law and cut the facade of the Constitution, and all that.

 

HERE IT IS, AGAIN:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I recommend re-reading the list of offences. Some that speak to me:

 

  • He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:(NOTE: those who take time to review the material, and supporting systems to this FAMILY LAW system (as well as its history) will soon acknowledge that it is NOT based on LAW, but on PSYCHOLOGY, and it doesn’t protect rights of individuals when they conflict with an amorphous definition called “FAMILY.” Moreover, the funding of grants to the courts to sway custody decisions is indeed foreign to the (myth?) many American women believed, that they had some semblance of equality under the law, or some access to it, and did not become second class citizens on reporting abuse or leaving it.

 

There are others. (sorry about that print) — BUT, it should be acknowledged that whiel we don’t have a single “HE” as a king, or prince, it’s quite possible for an oligarchy, or a ruling “elite” to make the primary decisions far from those affected by them, jsut as King George had an army, courtiers, and messengers. . . . When the US Government is tarting to operate like this, we are simply colonized and cannibalized by our own. …

  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

THIS IS HOW IT CONCLUDES:

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Ah well, another noble idea defeated by a dysfunctional formatting.

Grandparent Visitation, Father/mother visitation — 2 links

leave a comment »

 

Here are two links, one showing (in considerable detail) that, whether father or mother has visitation issues, the bottom line is, at least one parent’s $$ bottom line is going to drop — as evaluators, therapists, case managers, and mental health professionals are called into make their expert opinions known.

This first link discusses a case where the father first brought up parental alienation, asked for an immediate custody switch on that basis, and called upon the powers that be — including the (now deceased) Richard Gardner, M.D.  — whose theme song and swan song was parental alienation. 

This time, Gardner did NOT support the father, which obviously upset him.  A special case manager (a former judge) resigned after being threatened by the father, and so forth.  Sooner or later, the final of 3 children aged out of this childhood, or almost.

(1) Kansas Opinions   | Finding Aids: Case Name » Supreme Court or Court of Appeals | Docket Number | Release Date |  

No. 93,450

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of

JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,

Appellee,

and

WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,

Appellant.

[[LINK TO:]]  SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

This is just a sampling.  If you’re familiar with how some of these cases go (where there is some money in the family), you’ll recognize a few patterns, namely, that no matter what, SOMEONE is going to be in therapy, generally both parents AND the children.  SOMETIMES I think this need for therapy is directly generated by the court procedures, not the parents….

Also note (last sentence of expcerpt here), that the father does make some good points, regarding questionable reliance on expert opinion, and due process.  He is RIGHT about this.  However, let us all note who started bringing on the experts to discredit his wife….

I think this link is appropriate in that this is AFCC Conference month (one of many), which I have blogged on earlier.  This is a sampling of some experts that might get involved.  Remember what the JohnnyPumphandle post (Marv Bryer overview) reminds us: the court respects those opinions more than sworn facts or statements under penalty of perjury from non-experts who may be more familiar with the facts of the case.  That’s the nature of the beast.  Excuse me, system.

In July 2001, David moved to modify the 1996 divorce decree and for an emergency change of placement for Dylan and Evan. In his motion, David asked that he be given residential custody of Dylan and Evan, that the trial court order strict supervision of Janet’s contact with the boys, and that the trial court order a psychological evaluation of Janet, Dylan, and Evan to determine whether Janet was alienating the children from him. David maintained that Janet had “commenced a program and concerted effort to alienate the three children” from him and that she had interfered with his visitations and the parenting time and visitation schedule. At David’s request, these motions were dismissed in March 2002.

For summer 2001, the parties agreed to a split parenting arrangement where the children would essentially spend alternating weeks with each parent. In addition, the parties agreed to participate in psychological evaluations and testing. The agreed parenting plan was to continue until psychological evaluations and reports were completed.

Upon agreement by the parties, the trial court appointed Susan Vorhees, Ph.D., to conduct evaluation and testing of the parties and their minor children.

Who is Dr. Vorhees?  Well, here’s a Google result:

{NOTE:  I didn’t read of any accusations of abuse or Domestic Violence in the case at hand in this link, .i.e., the parents of Dylan, Anna, and Evan…  I am simply curious about Dr. Vorhees…as the trial court recommended her to evaluate}:

Quoting Dr. Vorhees:  (NOTE:  court syllabus spells last name “vorhees”.  This summary below is from Shawnee, KS area…)

Put another way, people minimize boys as victims of sexual assault when the perpetrator is an older woman, said Susan Voorhees, a doctor of clinical psychology whose patients include child victims. People smirk when word gets out an underage boy had sex with an older woman.

“Everyone has their fantasies,” Voorhees said, as in, ” ‘It would have been nice to have had some older woman teach me the ways of the world.”

n sentencing Liskey to probation, Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan Leuenberger said there was no evidence the victim suffered in the relationship. The judge also said the youth is “dealing with the situation fine,” and concerns by his parents that he might “crash” in the next four to six years are “speculative.”

Sexual abuse haIs lifelong implications for the mental health of both victims and their families,” Voorhees said in a letter dated Sept. 14 to Chief Judge Nancy Parrish to express her “grave concern” about the Liskey sentencing.

“I’ve never heard in my 30 years working with sexual abuse victims of a victim doing fine,” Voorhees said. Noting Liskey was psychologically evaluated, Voorhees questioned why the judge didn’t seek evaluation of the boy.

Boys don’t just fly right through the aftermath of abuse, Voorhees and Stultz-Lindsay said.

“The impact may not hit him until he is able to move away from the relationship,” Voorhees said.

“These boys feel like they’re in love with their perpetrator,” Stultz-Lindsay said.

Often the perpetrator is a member of the family or someone trusted by the family, and for the child, the abuser “may be one of the kindest people in their lives.” In the Liskey case, there was a double whammy because she was a paraprofessional in the victim’s gifted education program at Robinson Middle School and the best friend of the boy’s mother, Voorhees said.

“It’s not the face of evil,” the psychologist said of abusers. “It’s the actions of evil.”

It is to bad the judge did not see it that way.
 

 

BACK TO THE KANSAS CASE, LINK (1)….

Although David later moved for a protective order to prohibit the dissemination of Dr. Vorhees’ proposed report, the trial court ordered that Dr. Vorhees’ evaluation be provided to the court. Dr. Vorhees’ report, which was filed in December 2002, indicated that David was alienated from his children due to his own behavior. According to Dr. Vorhees, “[David] is alienated from them by his own inability to accept that they and their mother are independent individuals, that they need and want a relationship with both parents, and that he cannot be in control of either of these relationships.” Dr. Vorhees indicated that David’s alienation from the children could be resolved by David trying to accept his children for who they are and by listening to his children.

The trial court, on its own motion, appointed retired District Court Judge James Buchele as the case manager in January 2002. The trial court’s decision in this case indicates that the parties had been voluntarily working with Judge Buchele since October 2001. Judge Buchele recommended in January 2002 that the children reside with Janet and that David’s parenting time be “as approved by the Case Manager or as ordered by the Court.” David moved for review of these recommendations and also for an order for family therapy and other relief.

In February 2002, Judge Buchele made additional recommendations, including that Dylan and Evan be with David on Wednesdays after school until 8 p.m. and on alternating Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Judge Buchele again made recommendations in March 2002. Judge Buchele recommended that David spend a week during spring break with Evan and that the parties participate in family counseling with Michael Lubbers, Ph.D. At that time, Dylan and Evan were seeing Dale Barnum, Ph.D., and Janet and David were each working with a mental health professional. David objected to both the February 2002 and March 2002 recommendations.

Brief search on Michael Lubbers, Ph.D. shows that a Michael Lubbers got his Ph.D. in 2005-2006 year from the

GREATER KANSAS CITY PSYCHOANALYTIC INSTITUTE
 
Dale Barnum, on the other hand, appears to have been around a little longer:

January 16, 2001
– SRS Secretary Schalansky appoints Dale Barnum, for 20 years area director in Garden City, as new director of Rehabilitation Services.
banner for Kansas department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) Secretary Janet Schalansky today announced the appointment of Dale Barnum as state director of Rehabilitation Services, effective February 4, 2001.

Mr. Barnum has been the area director of the SRS Garden City office for the last 20 years, where he was responsible for program and resource management in the 25-county area. He oversaw a $10 million administrative budget and all SRS programs in the Garden City area, including services for children and families, adult services, rehabilitation services, child support enforcement, medical services, and economic and employment support services.

  

 

 

 

On June 12, 2002, Judge Buchele submitted his report and recommendations and also responded to David’s objections. In his report, Judge Buchele addressed David’s allegations that Janet had alienated Dylan and Evan. Judge Buchele’s opinion was that Dylan’s and Evan’s alienation from David was caused by David’s own conduct. Nevertheless, Judge Buchele was encouraged by the fact that David had spoken with Dr. Barnum and had agreed to work on a new approach to communicating with Evan.

In his report, Judge Buchele recommended modification of the existing parenting plan. Judge Buchele expanded David’s parenting time with Evan, setting forth specific times that Evan would spend with David. Judge Buchele’s recommendations assumed there would be some change in the status quo. Judge Buchele recommended that David’s parenting time with Dylan be “as they may agree.”

After David and Janet separately filed objections to Judge Buchele’s recommendations, Judge Buchele issued a supplemental report on June 27, 2002. Judge Buchele indicated that the brief attempt to expand David’s parenting time with Evan had been disastrous. Judge Buchele concluded that the problems in this case could not be resolved by additional time being spent between Evan and his father. Judge Buchele recommended that Evan be with David on Wednesdays from 4 to 8 p.m. and for one 24-hour period every weekend. Both David and Janet objected to Judge Buchele’s June 27, 2002, supplemental report and recommendations.

In November 2002, upon David’s motion, the trial court appointed Dr. Richard Gardner, M.D., to conduct a parental alienation syndrome (PAS) evaluation of the family. [[FOLKS< this is 2002!!  Still going on!!]] The trial court terminated its order for counseling with Dr. Lubbers but ordered Dylan and Evan to continue therapy with Dr. Barnum.   Moreover, the trial court ordered that the contact between Evan and David continue under the current arrangement and that the contact between Dylan and David be as Dylan desired.

Dr. Gardner completed the PAS evaluation and filed a written report in January 2003. Dr. Gardner found no evidence that the children were suffering from PAS or that Janet was a PAS alienator. Instead, Dr. Gardner indicated that the primary source of the children’s alienation from David was David’s own psychiatric problems, especially his obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and paranoid trends.

[[In which we see that this diagnosing one’s spouse in order to get even is a two-edged sword.  Names can be called either way…  And will…  Name-calling by experts are far more damaging to the situation than names called by mere parents, or children…]]

 

Dr. Gardner recommended that Janet continue to have primary parenting time with Dylan and Evan, that Janet have primary legal custody, and that the court rescind the order requiring Dylan and Evan to participate in therapy. Dr. Gardner indicated that the family could be helped with appropriate treatment given to David, Dylan, and Evan, but that such treatment should be on a voluntary basis.

[[UNDETERRED…]] In September 2003, David moved for the appointment of another case manager, for an order for the parties and children to participate in therapy, and for an order enforcing the joint decision making required under the parties’ joint custody agreement. Attached to David’s motion were letters from Nancy Hughes, Ph.D., LSCSW, who had conducted an adoption home study with David and his [[his NEW??]] wife, and from John Spiridigliozzi, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist who had been working with David for approximately 3 years. [[FYI:  Spiridigliozzi appears to work with people with addictions…]]  Both Dr. Hughes and Dr. Spiridigliozzi recommended the appointment of a case manager.

Obviously, both of them are working with David, not Nancy….

Moreover, Dr. Hughes indicated that she had read some of the file that David had compiled in this case and that it did not fit with her impression of David.

How comforting that expert professionals are brought in to give their “impressions.”

In November 2003, the trial court appointed William F. Ebert, III, as special master, whose duties included recommending therapy for the parties and their children as well as preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the trial court to review if the parties could not agree on child-rearing decisions or therapy.

Now who is William F. Ebert, III?   Any relationship to THIS one? (I do see an attorney in the Topeka, KS area…)  (THIS one is in Nebraska, and I note, no “III,” AND there are a lot of William Eberts around.  Kind of makes you wonder, though…)

William F. Ebert, appellant, v. Nebraska Department
of Correctional Services et al., appellees.Ebert v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.,
11 Neb. App. 553

Filed February 11, 2003.   No. A-01-906.

INTRODUCTION    William F. Ebert was sentenced in July 1997 to serve 10 years on each of three convictions of second degree forgery and being a habitual criminal. Ebert brought a declaratory judgment action in the district court for Lancaster County against the Department of Correctional Services (DCS); Harold W. Clarke, the director of DCS; and Ronald Riethmuller, the records manager of DCS (collectively the defendants), alleging that his sentences were improperly calculated in that he had not been given good time credit. The trial court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, based on statutory language mandating a minimum 10-year sentence on a habitual criminal conviction. The trial court further found that DCS was entitled to sovereign immunity and that the parties sued in their official capacities were entitled to immunity from Ebert’s request to compel them to credit him with good time. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

    Ebert was originally sentenced on March 26, 1996, to a term of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. The nature of Ebert’s original offense is not clear from the record in the present case. On July 1, 1997, Ebert received sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment on each of three separate convictions of second degree forgery and being a habitual criminal. The offenses for which Ebert received these sentences occurred in January and February 1996. These sentences were to run concurrently with one another but consecutively to Ebert’s previous sentence. Ebert has not received any good time credit toward the service of his 1997 sentences.

    Ebert filed a petition on December 28, 2000, initiating an action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,149 et seq. (Reissue 1995 & Cum. Supp. 2002), to determine his rights and legal interests in relation to the calculation of his 1997 sentences.

WELL, no, must be this one:

Phil Lewis Medal of Distinction

1995

J. Nick Badgerow, Martin W. Bauer, Patricia Macke Dick, William F. Ebert III, Hon. Jerry G. Elliott, and Carol G. Green

After meeting with the parties, reviewing the court file, which included the reports issued by the various professionals, reviewing email communication, contacting individuals identified by the parties, and discussing the case with the parties’ attorneys, the special master issued his written report in January 2004. In an order issued in February 2004, the trial court adopted the following proposed conclusions of law of the special master:

“1. If David Kimbrell genuinely desires to re-establish meaningful relationships with his children, it will be necessary for him to participate in individual therapy with a therapist who is knowledgeable about parental alienation syndrome and knowledgeable about parents who are emotionally abusive, especially those with significant psychiatric problems.

“2. If the individual therapy process with David is successful (i.e. if David can be helped to . . . appreciate . . . how he has contributed to the damaged relationships with his children and helped to understand how to modify his expectations and behavior accordingly) then the door should be opened to including Evan and/or Dylan in the therapy process, if they choose to participate (as per Dr. Gardner’s recommendations, §6, Pages 117, 118, Gardner Report).”

David moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision or, alternatively, to modify its previous orders. In his motion, David requested specific orders relating to the following: parenting time and visitation, exchanging information regarding the children, counseling, and terminating the special master’s appointment. In his motion, David argued that there could not be a therapy precondition to his contact with his children. In addition, David argued that the special master’s report was unreliable because it was factually flawed, placed undue reliance on questionable expert opinions, and did not comport with due process.

If so, those are legitimate complaints and concerns.  How can one have justice with factual flaws, undue reliance on questionable expert opinions, and violation of due process?  On the other hand, it does seem that he started that ball rolling to start with. 

In a memorandum decision filed in September 2004, the trial court granted in part and denied in part David’s motion. The trial court concluded:

“1. Based upon the case history, recommendations filed with the court, and the lack of any success with court-ordered therapy, the court will not order any of the parties in this case to participate in therapy. However, the court concurs with the special master’s recommendation that Respondent participate in therapy to attempt to gain some insight into his relationship with his biological children and that any of his children participate in that therapy as they would like.

“2. Dylan, DOB 09/05/86, is now eighteen. His parenting time is no longer under the jurisdiction of this court.

 

This one above, I actually read in detail, fine print and all.  I wish I’d been a fly on the wall on the case in point.  While readers are told of the various professionals involved, one wonders whether abuse was or was not, given the degree of control, and bittter anger.  s might do well to go through the case (as I did some months ago on the Oconto, Wisconsin case, listing the staggering amount of “players” involved).

(2)

 NEWMAN-13-1-A2-PV 3/15/2004 9:55 AM 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL…)

The second link (I confess — a referral) is a lengthy discussion about using the assumption of a model, functioning family as the basis for families going through the family law system, when in fact these are typically NOT the functional ones.  It comes from Boston University, and deals with the Troxel case.  I have only glanced at this link, not read it.

 

GRANDPARENT VISITATION CLAIMS:

ASSESSING THE MULTIPLE HARMS OF LITIGATION TO FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

  

S

 

 

 

TEPHEN A. NEWMAN*

  

“In fairness, how much confrontation and litigation should a child be expected to bear?”

 

 

 

1

 

 

[[Or a parent, particularly a single custodial parent…]] [[note:  the quote below is a little scrambled — technical cut & paste issues on my part — but gives an idea of the issues raised. ]

 

  

I

 

NTRODUCTION
 

Family law has made significant progress in the last several decades by gradually
discarding two models of “family” for legal decision making purposes: the
“conventional” family and the “well-functioning” family. In constitutional terms,
the conventional family’s monopoly on legal rights loosened considerably in 1972
when the Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, to maintain custody of his “illegitimate” children when the children’s mother died.
be unfit and made his children wards of the state. In subsequent years, a wide array
of state decisions conferred family recognition and benefits, in varying degrees,
upon families headed by single mothers, gay and lesbian couples, unmarried
cohabitants, and others who failed to fit the conventional mold.
 
In Stanley, The Court stuck down an Illinois law that presumed the unwed father to5
Grandparent visitation laws, the subject of this article, provide an example of the
law’s ill-advised use of the model of well-functioning family relationships

   

 

visitation with a child “at any time” if visits would “serve the best interest of the
child.” In Troxel, the Supreme Court confronted one of the most sweeping visitation15 Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel lived together and had two children.16
They separated in 1991, and two years later Brad committed suicide.
Tommie allowed Brad’s parents to continue seeing the children following the
suicide, but five months later she decided to adjust the visitation schedule, limiting
the Troxels to one visit per month.
Tommie for increased visitation, pursuing their claim through six and a half years
of litigation to the United States Supreme Court.

   

17 At first,18 Two months afterward, the Troxels sued19
The case generated six opinions from the Supreme Court. Despite the
controversial nature of the substantive due process doctrine, a clear majority of the
justices agreed that parents possess a due process liberty right to the care, custody,
and control of their own children.
Scalia would deny the existence of such a right.
Washington statute, as applied, violated the mother’s constitutional rights.
justice, David Souter, would have gone further and declared the statute
unconstitutional on its face, effectively making the plurality opinion the operative
constitutional ruling.
parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children resolved the
case.
existence of the right to parent.

20 From the opinions, it appears that only Justice21 A four-justice plurality found the22 A fifth23 Justice Thomas agreed that the Court’s recognition of24 Justices Stevens and Kennedy, though dissenting, also acknowledged the25

 

The plurality started its analysis by noting that the conventional family is only
one of many modern family forms. “While many children may have two married
parents and grandparents who visit regularly, many other children are raised in
single-parent households.”

26

According to cited census figures, some four million children reside in the household of grandparents, and a substantial minority of
grandparents act in a parental role, assisting single parents in performing the

“everyday tasks of child rearing.”

27

The opinion also made clear that it would not rely upon an idealized version of
family relationships:

In an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between

grandparents and their grandchildren. Needless to say, however, our world is

far from perfect, and in it the decision whether such an intergenerational

relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make

in the first instance.

28

Tactfully, but unfortunately, the justices did not identify the realities that
contradict the classic stereotype of the well-functioning grandparent in the family

life of children. A more realistic picture of these grandparent visitation cases

would have emerged had the opinion acknowledged some of the ways in which

stereotypes involving grandparents sometimes fail. A mention, for example, of

situations in which grandparents are not doting, loving and helpful, but abusive,

demeaning, controlling, meddlesome or belligerent, would have placed these cases

in a more realistic light. In fact, the cases in the nation’s family courts regularly

feature such untraditional grandparents.

29 The only hint of such realities in the

Troxel
“recognition of an independent third-party interest in a child can place a substantial

burden on the traditional parent-child relationship.”

plurality opinion is a possible inference from the Court’s observation that30

 
 

 


 

 

Again, my main purpose is to provide the two links, and a little commentary for those who are interested in the topic, and a sampling (as ever) of who ARE some of those professionals involved here (although, this time, I didn’t get much background on that…)

%d bloggers like this: