We don’t need Guardian Ad Litems or Mental Health – so called ‘experts’ in the family courts. BAD FOR CHILDREN BAD FOR MOTHERS

 

We don’t need GALs, ACs, or LGs in the family courts. Same with forensic evaluations. Nancy Erkison’s article (dated 2007)

 

LawGuardians2007[1]

Also See: The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals - Legislative Reforms Needed http://bit.ly/lSM0x3

Jill Dykes and Rene Netherton: your racket and easy pay of blood money and your GAL profession is about to bottom out, along with any semblance of any redemption you may have—perhaps being a human would be a start—but we know that you are not. Karma is a bitch.

 

GAL Power

Marcus Griffith

"As a result, she has viewed all allegations of sexual abuse by her children ... as efforts to discredit her and to gain the advantage in a custody battle, rather than wake-up calls to a victim of child sexual abuse who remade herself into sexual abuse zombie ... "

 

GAL Power

Marcus Griffith

 

Divorced parents with minor children often fight over custody and visitation rights, producing courtroom decisions that are complex and often heartbreaking for at least one parent. This story takes a rare public look into that system for two reasons:

First, it involves the kind of complicated, personal and family situations that make these cases so difficult to adjudicate. Secondly, there is the additional drama of conflict combined with allegations of questionable performances among the justice system officials themselves.

Clark County Court Commissioner Carin Schienberg recently removed two children from their mother’s home, even though no petition for such action was before the court. Schienberg based her temporary decision on an allegedly flawed report prepared by a court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL).

When the mother’s attorney criticized the GAL report and refused to apologize for her comments, the commissioner held the attorney in contempt and fined her $500.

The commissioner’s ruling is under appeal, with a hearing pending. Meanwhile, the two minor children have been moved to the custody of their father. He has issued multiple threats of legal action against the writer and any publication who would publish a story about this case.

In Washington State, court commissioners are appointed by superior court judges. They are not elected by the public, but they have many of the same responsibilities and authorities as a superior court judge.

A family law guardian ad litem is appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child, often during divorce or custody proceedings. In addition to family law matters, a GAL can be appointed to assist anyone a court deems legally incapacitated. Clark County commissioners and judges appointed GALs 396 times in 2010, according to Superior Court Administrator Jeffrey Amram.

GAL reports are confidential. However, the author obtained a copy of the GAL report from an undisclosed source after concerns were raised about contents of the report and the commissioner’s ruling.

Case didn’t seek custody

In August 2008, the mother received “primary residential placement” of the two minor children as part of a court-approved parenting plan. After more than two years of continuing conflict between the parents, the father filed an October 2010 contempt motion against the mother for violation of visitation rights.

The commissioner, in early December, held the mother in contempt for certain violations. At the same time, she approved a motion to require that transfer of the children for visitation times take place at the Vancouver police station due to conflict between the parties.

In November, the mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, asking for restricted visitation time with the father until he received counseling for anger management. The father, responding in December, said there was insufficient proof for a major modification of that plan.

That is the issue before the court that led to the appointment of Vancouver attorney Meredith McKell Graff as Guardian ad Litem to investigate the matter.

According to the mother’s attorney, Vancouver attorney April Brinkman, the GAL report was supposed to be finished by the first of February 2011. However, it was not submitted to the court until May 12, and it came with a blockbuster recommendation that the children be removed from the mother’s home and the father be given primary residential placement.

A source close to the case, who asked not to be identified, said there were significant concerns about the integrity of that 26-page report, which were ignored by Commissioner Schienberg. The source called the report a product of “shoddy investigation” and involved “lies told in court” by Graff.

Background shows need for a GAL

It has been almost a decade since the Clark County parents in this case were divorced. Subsequent battles over custody of their children have included numerous allegations between the parties of child abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and harassment.

The 2008 parenting plan noted the “abusive use of conflict by both parents” as a potential risk to the “psychological development” of both children. Information from various sources and documents reveals disturbing allegations surrounding both parents that make it difficult to sort fact from fiction.

One of the more disturbing allegations against the mother is referred to as the “wiener game.” It was reported to Child Protective Services at an unspecified time, according to the confidential GAL report. While bathing with her children, the report says, the mother “taught each boy how to stimulate himself to erection… then balance an action figure toy on their erect penis. The longer they can hold the toy on their penis is the winner (sic).”

The father allegedly has forced his children to write false accusations against their month, including allegations outlines in a recent police report. In that June 1 report, Battle Ground Officer Joshua Phelps wrote:

“I asked [redacted] about his mom making him lie about things. [Redacted] told me that she did not do that, but their father told them to write that down.”

It doesn’t appear, at this time, that police or Child Protective Services have substantiated allegations against either parent, but due to the long record of conflict it’s no surprise that the court saw need for an independent and objective view of a GAL.

GAL investigation takes a turn

The court order appointing Meredith McKell Graff as GAL instructed her to “investigate and report the factual information to the court concerning parenting arrangements” of the two children. Graff’s final report was unequivocal in its recommendation.

“The children in this matter… are at extreme risk of harm if they remain any longer in the mother’s home,” the report states. “They should be removed immediately.”

Subsequent concerns about the GAL report are voiced prominently by the mother’s attorney in the motion for reversal of Commissioner Schienberg’s temporary order.

High on the list of concerns about the May 12 report is a statement by Graff that she interviewed the references for both parents. That conflicts with her statement of May 24 in which she declared, “I did not interview (the mother’s reference); my legal assistant performed this task.”

Neither statement revealed the actual fact that Graff’s assistant, Heidi Atwood, actually interviewed all four references listed in the report.

“As the guardian ad litem’s legal assistant,” wrote Atwood in her May 24 declaration to the court, “in order to save time… I was given the assignment of calling all the guardian ad litem references and asking them the questions requested by the guardian ad litem ... ”

Atwood is not listed on the court-approved guardian ad litem registry, and there’s no record that she has completed any of the required training to work as guardian ad litem. She is a 40-year-old college student at Washington State University whose only professional license in Washington is as a Notary Public, according to Graff’s law office and state documents. 

A lie in court?

Court transcripts of the June 2 hearing include Graff’s statement that she couldn’t obtain a release from the mother to get medical records. “Because (the mother) did not sign a HIPAA release with her doctor … I did not get medical records from the mother,” said Graff.

However, Brinkman has since filed with the court a copy of just such a release, signed by the mother on March 29 and faxed to Graff’s office, according to Brinkman. 

Further, Graff didn’t need that release to get the information. The court order appointing her includes a signed “release of information” provision giving her access to all pertinent records, specifically including health care records, for both parents.

The GAL report says that Graff has “minimal concerns with the father,” despite the fact that she quoted a 2007 psychological evaluation saying that the father has “issues with chronic and intense anger;” that he is “not able to express negative feeling appropriately;” that he is “over-controlled with brief, impulsive episodes of acting out;” and that he is “sensitive to rejection and has a subtle paranoia that is expressed as jealously or possessiveness. He can be hostile when criticized and has little self-awareness.”

The doctor who conducted that psychological evaluation of the father also evaluated his current wife, saying she is “aggressive and striving,” and “defines her view as the correct one and assumes that to disagree with her is simply a demonstration of one’s lack of understanding.”

Graff’s report did not disagree with that impression, but said the children need a controlling adult in their lives. “Even though the father’s wife may appear to some that she is ‘controlling,’ she is actually what the boys need right now,” Graff wrote.

The report recommended that both parents enter counseling, but held “no reservations” about having the children moved to primary residency with their father.

Many issues of credibility

Graff used Child Protective Services reports to help form her recommendation that the children face eminent harm in the mother’s care. However, none of the allegations against the mother have been substantiated by Child Protective Services, police or the county prosecutor’s office, according to available court documents.  

Graff considered various allegations of both parents to be less than credible.

“The parents — both of them — have engaged in CPS and the police far too often, and too many times with false or misleading information, in order to discredit the other parent,” Graff stated.

It’s not clear, then, why allegations from one side would become grounds for such a significant recommendation. There is also a matter of various subjective and inflammatory words and phrases used in the report.

The report at one point says that the mother “remade herself into a sexual abuse zombie,” and later says a photo of the mother and her new husband “shows them tonguing like reptiles.” Nothing clarified the use of those phrases as part of an evaluation of parenting skills.

The GAL report also indicates that Graff did not interview the children’s doctors, teachers, psychologists or neighbors.

Lack of balance in interviews

Graff — or rather, her assistant, Atwood — interviewed three references for the father but only one for the mother, an imbalance that casts doubt on fairness of the investigation. And despite Graff being assigned the investigation in December, Atwood didn’t start requesting interviews with the mother’s references until May 10, according to numerous court documents and the declaration of a veteran Oregon police officer.

Officer Jason Maddy stated, “The law office of McKell Graff left a voicemail for me Tuesday, May 10, 2011, sometime during the afternoon. Records indicate that the voicemail was the first and only time that Atwood called Maddy. He planned to call Atwood on May 13, but Graff completed her report on May 11.

Maddy, an experienced investigator, was bothered by the one-day callback window. “I would never even think of just calling someone and leaving a message and writing the report the next day without hearing from them,” Maddy stated. He further stated that he “would have been able to provide very important information about how I have seen (the mother) interact with her children.”

Another reference provided by the mother said she didn’t receive the request for an interview until May 11. By the time she called Graff’s law office the report already was filed, and Atwood wouldn’t document what she said would have been favorable statements about the mother.

Even more disturbing, although Graff may have stopped taking statements in support of the mother on May 11, she continued taking statements against the mother even after the report was filed with the court. In her May 24 declaration, Graff references new allegations against the mother that surfaced after the confidential report was filed on May 12.

“I have been now told,” wrote Graph in that declaration, “that the children have been punished for telling me things that the mother did not want me to know or the children to tell me.”

Second-hand allegations

Graff appears to have disregarded her direct observations of the mother’s house in favor of statements from unidentified sources.

“The mother’s home is chaotic and dirty,” Graff stated in her report. However, she wrote that the house was staged to look clean during her lone visit there.

“The mother made a point of having me go ‘say goodnight’ to each boy before beginning the interview,” Graff wrote. “I am concerned this was an effort to get me to walk down the hall to show me that the house was ‘neat,’ rather than how it had been prior to its staging for my visit.”

The report cited an unnamed source who reported to Graff that the mother put a large amount of “stuff” in storage so Graff would not see the usual state of the house.

In contrast, Graff was very impressed with the father’s home, where she made multiple visits. She wrote: “Going in, one feels a sense of peace and calm.” Although records indicate that there was only one investigative interview at the father’s house, Graff wrote, “I have been to the (father’s) home on more than occasion.”

The father’s house is in an upscale neighborhood, and court documents indicate that the father makes substantially more money than the mother. Graff said, however, that those factors were not taken into consideration in her recommendation.

“To be clear,” she wrote, “my recommendation for (the father) being named the primary residential parent is not based on socio-economic factors. I have been appointed in other cases where the recommended placement was for the poorer home of the two parents.”

She continued, in one of the report’s more unusual narratives: “One can be clean, neat, organized, and poor, with clean, ragged clothes and one can have money and worldly possessions and be dirty, chaotic, and provide no supervision for children, along with allowing them to be sexually abused within the grand, expensive home.”

GAL invoices for thousands more

Graff is seeking payment of almost $2,500 more than was first authorized by the court, which wrote in its appointing order: “The guardian ad litem fee is $75 per hour up to $750, the maximum the guardian ad litem may charge without additional court review and approval.”

That full $750 was paid months ago through combined payments from the parents. But according to Graff, she has racked up 41.6 hours to date for a total bill of $3,120. She stated in a court document that it would be “appropriate for the court to order the parties to share an additional $2,370.”

The GAL invoice does not explain how many hours her assistant worked, of whether those hours are included in the billing.

Commissioner’s fully endorses report

The June 2 hearing, held in open court, included specific reference to contents of the confidential GAL report. And Commissioner Schienberg seemed very pleased with the quality of the report.

“First of all,” Schienberg said in the hearing, I want to thank Ms. Graff for her work. I think you did an excellent job; it was very thorough … I think she did an excellent report.”

The commission, however, went beyond stating her positive impression of the report. When April Brinkman questioned the lack of supporting documents in the report, Schienberg was quick to demand that Brinkman apologize to the GAL.

“There’s no evidence to support anything that the GAL has said,” Brinkman stated in court. The transcript record of that statement provides no information on tone, volume, body language or any other factor except the words themselves.

“Excuse me, you’re going to apologize right now to this Court and to Ms. Graff,” said Schienberg, “or I will hold you in contempt. You apologize, now.”

Brinkman declined to apologize, was held in contempt of court and was fined $500.

Schienberg said in the hearing that her decision to relocate the children was based on the GAL report, statements made during the hearing and unspecified “documents in Volumes 4 and 5.” 

According to the court transcript, Brinkman did not receive those documents, and they were not listed in Graff’s report.

At one point, Brinkman asked Schienberg if “the guardian ad litem is supposed to attach any document she used to the report the Court considers?” Schienberg responded:

“Okay. I took the report that Ms. Graff has provided me and her comments, she is an officer of the court. I trust that when speaks to the court, she is not lying to the court. She has an excellent reputation in this court. She is a person who has done a number of guardian ad litem reports, always well done, always thoroughly researched, always coming to an unbiased, no prejudicial conclusion. I value her work.”

Perhaps reflecting the volatile nature of cases before her court, Commissioner Schienberg has attracted a Facebook page entitled “Fire Washington Court Commissioner Carin Schienberg.” The page has 30 members and includes comments from people who have had family law matters before her court.

Schienberg, reached via e-mail with a request for comment on this story, said she could not comment on an ongoing matter.

Legislator interested in case

Washington State Rep. Ann Rivers of the 18th District and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, was contacted by the mother with concerns about this case. Rivers confirmed in a phone interview that she spoke with the mother and is “concerned” by the issues raised.

“Anytime we have children put into a destabilized system, families lose out,” said Rivers, adding that she is in the “infancy stage of research” and is seeking more information from state legal staff.

Rivers said she believes that parents should place their responsibility to their children above any personal disagreement with each other. As for certain unusual language in the GAL report, Rivers said it wasn’t the kind of thing she would expect to see in a formal report.

Meanwhile, the author and The Vancouver Voice received emailed threats — from the father’s email account — of legal action if the investigation into this case continues. A June 16 email also suggests that Graff is providing legal assistance to the father and his current wife, stating:

“The guardian ad litem is also an attorney and these minors (sic) attorney, and she informed us today that if you print or allow Mr. Griffith to print a story about these minors, you and Mr. Griffith will be served with lawsuits, liable to start.”

Attorney Meredith Graff did not respond to several requests for comment. For updates on the case, visit the blog, VanVoice Blotter, at www.vanvoice.com.

Rene M. Netherton- Court Appointed Child Abuser and Child Trafficker

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500918795

Now this is original--- of course a ‘skank’ bottom dweller Topeka Kansas Attorney would define themselves on facebook—pretty much as she is—only this ‘bitch’ (the doggie pic) has more grit than the other ‘bitch’ Rene Netherton.

The only person she scares is her dead mother Marge., perhaps her dead daddy too.

She literally sold out her own family to be a “nobody”. How honorable.

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/48069-622201151037PM

Screenshot Details:Url: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500918795

Created: 6/22/2011 5:10:37 PM

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System Courts Punish Battered Mothers and give Children To Abusers

Read more Here: A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

Edited to The Kansas case  Claudine Dombrowski  read full article here:

By Barry Goldstein

The concept of Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases was developed because of the frequency of extreme results in custody cases in which children are endangered, safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children 

The Battered Mothers Custody Conference was started in response to what we believed were too many of these tragic cases to be viewed as exceptions.

In most cases mothers are pathologized or demonized in order to create the appearance of a justification for the extreme actions taken.  To illustrate the problem, I want to look at four of these extreme cases because they represent the kinds of mistakes the court system routinely makes and will continue to make until it changes practices that were developed at a time when no research was available and have proven to be detrimental to the children the courts are

2. In a well known Kansas case that I have discussed with  Claudine Dombrowski the protective mother, the father has numerous convictions for domestic violence and other crimes and a poor relationship with the daughter. Despite this, the court gave custody to the father and imposed ever greater restrictions on the mother's access to the daughter.

The mother has been active in exposing the broken court system and the court has wasted large amounts of time and money seeking to remove information from the Internet and silence the mother's concerns.

The court has retaliated against the mother with reductions in visitation and a variety of sanctions.

Instead we see the kind of retaliation and punitive measures harmful to children that was used in the Kansas cases. Read more here:

 This contributes to the widespread inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and in turn led to the mistakes in these four cases and other cases endangering over 58,000 children every year.

Cases are more like the Kansas case where the harm is better hidden and not as dramatic for the public. The children grow up without their primary attachment figure, often suffer private but horrible abuse and many become involved in a wide range of harmful behaviors in response to the direct and indirect abuse inflicted by their abusers. Most will never reach their potential as a result of the mistakes made in the custody courts.

As with many mistaken decisions, the mother has been pathologized by the unqualified professionals involved in the case.  Since they "know" the mother's allegations are false and she continues to believe them, she must be "delusional" and therefore unfit for anything but supervised visitation. If she were delusional, it would stand to reason that this would present a problem in the rest of her life.

These professionals have never stopped to consider how she can be successful professionally, academically and in all other phases of her life. Perhaps the DSM should include a new condition "delusional in the custody courts." www.WhoresoftheCourt.com

The Kansas case  Claudine Dombrowski is similar in that they have long since ignored or minimized the very real danger the abusive father poses to the child and instead concentrate all their attention on the supposed harm the mother can cause by continuing to believe the father is unsafe and posting information on the Internet that helps to expose a broken court system. Judges are ethically required to avoid actions that create the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Although they phrase the demand to remove material as if it benefitted the child, in reality the real purpose is to hide the history of abuse of the father and the failure of the court to act in the child's best interests.

Given the clear conflict of interest (they are seeking to remove materials that criticize the court), at the very least they would need convincing evidence that the mother's beliefs would create a long-term harm to the child.

Similarly, the removal of the mother from the child's life, although she is the primary attachment figure creates a serious risk of harm to the child that the court has failed to address.

Until the court can cite evidence or research to support its assumptions, the extreme actions present at least an appearance of impropriety.

Ironically in the Kansas case of Claudine Dombrowski the courts put a high priority on placing the children with the parent it viewed as most likely to promote a relationship with the other parent, but when the abusive fathers sought to deny the children a meaningful relationship with the parent the children most need (the primary attachment figure), the same priority of keeping both parents in the children's lives was no longer paramount. This is a common mistake in the custody courts and is one example of the widespread gender bias faced by mothers.

I believe it is outrageous that the custody courts have not made children's safety the first priority. 

In the Kansas cases the courts seem to have unlimited time and resources to investigate the "danger" the children might hear their mothers' concern for their safety and well being.

In the absence of such safety issues it is virtually always wrong for courts to take the extreme action of barring unsupervised visitation. This is certainly true when it is done in the context of mothers trying to protect their children from fathers they believe are unsafe. The research establishes that because of the outdated and discredited practices court professionals routinely use, a large majority of findings denying the mothers' allegations are mistaken.

In other words the harm to the children of these visitation restrictions is almost always greater than the harm the court thinks it is avoiding.

This was explained by Joan Zorza in her chapter in our book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, chapter 14 page 26.

"Otherwise as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. In this context, it is important for courts that rule against alleged victims of DV to be open to the possibility that they made a mistake. Courts should be reluctant to take punitive or retaliatory actions against mothers who continue to believe their partners abused them."

The courts in Kansas  could have saved the children a lot of harm (and still can) by following this advice based on the most up-to-date research available.

The elephant in the room is the issue of corruption. Every time courts make decisions that appear to have no relationship to the evidence presented and make orders that cannot possibly benefit the children involved, they create the appearance of corruption.

When courts seek to silence protective mothers and retaliate for criticism of the court or their abuser, they are promoting the belief that only corruption could explain these extreme and harmful decisions.

There are cases decided by corruption.

More commonly mental health professionals and some attorneys  Guardian Ad Litems’  (Jill Dykes, Rene Netherton) have adopted beliefs and practices that favor abusers because that is where the money is.

Today there is a cancer on the custody court system. Some children are dying and others have their lives ruined by unjustified and extreme decisions. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in her Afterward to our new book that once the book is published anyone who continues to use the old practices must be understood to be committing malpractice.

The four cases discussed in this article were originally decided based upon the old discredited practices. It is too late to save the children in California and Maryland. (entire article here:)

We can still help the children in New Jersey and Kansas by taking a fresh look at the cases based on the up-to-date research now available.  I hope they will treat the research as a gift and not an attack and use it to remove the cancer on the court system. In doing so the court system can support my view that the mistaken decisions are not based on corruption.

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

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence? Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders.

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?

By Barry Goldstein

Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders. It is not like cancer or heart disease which would require some fundamental changes in human behavior to achieve massive reductions. We could easily put together a change in laws, policies and practices and quickly end the danger of domestic violence for most women and children. If we could as readily prevent most of the deaths from earthquakes, tornados, cancer or terror attacks, we would not hesitate to do so. Why should we continue to tolerate the enormous harm caused by abusers? Many of our leaders have spoken of and dreamed of a world without domestic violence. This is a worthy goal, but I am not naïve enough to believe we can end all domestic violence in our lifetimes. We can, however create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes. I say let’s do it.
Background
Our publisher asked Mo Hannah and I to prepare a second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. I decided to write a chapter for the book of a modern tale of two cities comparing Quincy, Massachusetts with Poughkeepsie, New York. I selected Quincy, Massachusetts because they had developed the Quincy Model which had resulted in a drastic reduction of domestic violence homicide. I selected Poughkeepsie, New York because they had been severely criticized for using approaches in custody court that strongly favored abusive fathers. The court system and particularly the judges reacted to the criticism in a defensive and retaliatory manner. Dutchess County has now had a series of domestic violence homicides including the last crime in which the abusive father also killed a police officer. The County Legislature created a committee to study and respond to the series of domestic violence homicides and I am interested to see if they make a connection between the murders and the pattern of mistreatment of protective mothers in the custody court system.
In the late 1970s around the start of the modern movement to end domestic violence, approximately three thousand domestic violence homicides were committed each year in the United States. The frequency of domestic violence homicides did not change significantly until society adopted policies and practices to hold abusers accountable, particularly with pro-arrest policies. The timing of the increased accountability with the reduction in domestic violence homicide supported the belief that these policies led to the reduction, but perhaps what was most convincing was the results in communities that were especially strict in enforcing domestic violence laws. Communities like Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California saw even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide as a result of strong programs to prevent domestic violence. Quincy, Massachusetts adopted its model in response to a series of domestic violence homicides and for many years they had no domestic violence homicides in Quincy.
Achieving a Massive Reduction in Domestic Violence Crime
As part of the research for my chapter I have had the opportunity to read about the practices that were so successful in Quincy and elsewhere. I have also read some of the ideas for improving the conditions in Poughkeepsie. We also have the research to establish improved practices in the custody courts. This is particularly important for reducing domestic violence crimes because abuser rights groups have been particularly successful in using common mistakes and flawed practices in the custody courts to undermine the progress society had made elsewhere in reducing domestic violence. The result of the failures in the custody courts has been that more battered mothers are staying with their abusers because they are afraid of being separated from their children and some of them do not survive this decision. Although some have attributed the recent rise in domestic violence homicide after many years of reduction to the bad economy, I believe the problems we see in the custody courts is the more likely explanation. Based upon the research and experience, I believe it would be easy for a group of domestic violence experts to create a best practices model that would result in a drastic reduction in domestic violence crimes.
The basic reforms that would create a massive reduction in domestic violence crime should not be in dispute. Experts may differ about some of the specifics around the edges, but the decisions on those issues would not affect the positive outcome if we included the practices that have been shown to work. We are working on a more complete and detailed agenda for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, but we already know the basics of what is needed. Here is what any reform agenda would include:
1. Coordinated Community Response: The communities that were most successful in reducing domestic violence homicide developed a coordinated community response in which all parts of the community came together to do their part in ending domestic violence. The professionals worked together to coordinate their response and included the domestic violence community as a key resource in the response to domestic violence. The communities had regular meetings to monitor how the campaign to end domestic violence was going and to make adjustments as needed.
2. Make it Easier for Victims to Obtain Protective Orders: Some people disparage protective orders as not worth the paper they are printed on and sometimes it is true, but women with protective orders are safer than those without. Society needs to make it less of a burden on battered women to obtain needed protection by having specified times when the court handles only protective orders so women can get in and out of court quickly. At other times judges should take protective orders before other cases because of the safety concerns. This is important because women may have work or family obligations that make it difficult to wait around the court in order to see a judge. Many judges get frustrated when women seek a protective order and then don’t return for the next court date. Reducing the burdens on victims will encourage them to follow through. At the same time there should be special clerks that help women fill out the forms and prosecutors’ offices should brief victims on the procedures they can expect. Finally judges should take domestic violence allegations more seriously, receive better training and make sure women who need protection can obtain the orders.
3. Strict Enforcement of Criminal Laws and Violations of Protective Orders: The heart of the programs that created a substantial reduction in domestic violence homicide was taking domestic violence seriously. This requires strict enforcement of domestic violence crimes and protective orders. Research demonstrates that abusive men tend to use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners. That is why accountability and monitoring are the best ways to prevent domestic violence. The strict enforcement not only sends a message to the men held accountable, and their children, it sends a message to the entire community. The programs are often launched with important media coverage and those involved in the coordinated community response also help spread the message.
4. Lethality Assessment: The most important purpose of the laws, programs and practices designed to prevent domestic violence is the safety of victims and their children. One of the first things domestic violence advocates learn is safety planning and how to assess the danger. There are several common behaviors of abusers that have been shown to be related to an increased level of danger that domestic violence experts look at in making lethality assessments. These behaviors include choking, strangling or putting his hands around his partner’s throat, assaulting her while pregnant, raping or attempting to rape his partner, killing or hurting family pets, availability of guns, threats of suicide, homicide or kidnapping and a belief she has no right to leave. Incredibly, court professionals rarely use risk assessments or even understand the significance of these behaviors in making judgments about alleged abusers. Criminal courts should be using risk assessments to inform decisions about bail, protective orders and sentencing. Custody courts should use this information in determining custody and visitation arrangements that are safe for the victim and children.
5. Give Domestic Violence Cases the First Priority: Communities that reduced domestic violence crimes gave these cases the first priority. As discussed earlier this means making sure victims can get access to judges quickly so they don’t lose jobs or have to spend a lot of money on child care in order to protect themselves. It means local judges coming to arraignments after hours rather than releasing alleged offenders with an appearance ticket, but no protective order. It also means that custody courts must recognize most contested custody cases involve domestic violence and place a priority on the safety of the children and alleged victims.
6. Best Interests of the Child Should Mean Safety is the First Priority: The most important issue in deciding custody should be the safety of the children, but states usually have a list of factors to be considered and shockingly courts often focus on other less important issues. The second priority should be arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential.
7. Use of Current Scientific Research: When domestic violence first became a public issue there was no research to inform professionals about the best way to respond. When professionals modified their practices based on new research it has helped protect victims. Police departments went from practices of separating the parties and having the abuser walk around the block to cool off to a pro-arrest policy. Communities that created more accountability for abusers saw domestic violence crimes reduced. Child protective agencies that have partnered with domestic violence agencies and consulted with their advocates on potential domestic violence cases have been better able to recognize domestic violence and forge arrangements that protect children better. Police and prosecutors need to be aware of the frequency in which abusers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations and avoid wasting their resources persecuting their victims before fully investigating the allegations and speaking with the real victims. Custody courts have been particularly slow to modify practices based on current scientific research. They need to recognize most contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to maintain their control. They need to limit the role of mental health professionals to their area of expertise which is mental health and not domestic violence. They need to avoid inadequately trained professionals who continue to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations particularly in sexual abuse cases. The court must also stop permitting unscientific theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome.
8. Retraining Court Professionals: A lot of unfortunate events have combined to create widespread beliefs in a wide range of misinformation about domestic violence. Domestic violence is often counterintuitive which leads to misinformation. The lack of research when court professionals started responding also contributes to the problem. The widespread use of unqualified professionals has encouraged an undeserved confidence in false notions that make them harder to challenge and correct. The media has done a lousy job of covering domestic violence and often fails to understand who the experts are. Accordingly we need to retrain court professionals both to prevent the use of misinformation and to help the professionals learn about current scientific research, domestic violence dynamics and best practices. The training must have the active participation of genuine domestic violence experts such as dv advocates. Professionals working in criminal court must learn the importance of taking domestic violence seriously, prioritizing domestic violence cases and holding offenders strictly accountable. They should particularly learn how communities have dramatically reduced domestic violence homicide. Criminal court professionals must learn that accountability and monitoring are the only approaches shown to reduce domestic violence. Domestic violence is not caused by substance abuse, mental illness or anger management issues. Some offenders may have mental illness or substance abuse and domestic violence issues and each problem should be responded to separately. Custody court professionals must unlearn the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. They need to look at the motivation of alleged abusers and understand the harm to children. They must learn that allegations of child sexual abuse have been totally mishandled and learn best practices to respond to these painful allegations. They also must learn that the way to include both parents in children’s lives that most benefits children is to require abusers to stop their harmful tactics instead of asking their victims to get over their fear and concern.
9. Use of Domestic Violence Experts: We now have a substantial body of specialized knowledge about domestic violence. Courts must stop relying on “experts” unfamiliar with this research and ignorant of domestic violence dynamics and instead listen to genuine domestic violence experts. Courts must stop refusing to listen to these genuine experts and especially until this information is better known to court professionals allow these experts to testify in order to educate the judge and other professionals.
10. Early Domestic Violence Hearings in Custody Cases: A large majority of contested custody cases are actually domestic violence cases. The research is very clear that unless the victim is unsafe, she should have custody and the abuser supervised visitation because that is what works best for children. Accordingly, custody courts can schedule an evidentiary hearing at the start of the case on the domestic violence issue. There is no need for evaluators or GALs as it is a factual issue. This will permit courts to resolve cases in a few hours or less that otherwise would take months or years and provide a huge savings in money and court time. Children also benefit because they don’t have to spend years worried about where they will live. This also avoids less important and distracting issues that only make it more difficult for the judge to understand the issues. This practice is likely to help courts make better decisions as well as quicker ones.
11. Use of Victim’s Advocate: The advocates are used by law enforcement to help and support the victim and provide information and training for law enforcement personnel. They are used in the prosecutor’s office for similar purposes and to acquaint the victim with the procedures. These practices should make survivors more comfortable and thus more likely to cooperate and press charges. In the court clerk’s office the advocate can help victims fill out forms and documents and explain the procedures. These procedures will help provide law enforcement and the courts with needed evidence while encouraging the complainant to continue to participate.
12. New Approach to Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Cases: Although most allegations of child sexual abuse made by mothers are true and deliberately false allegations are rare, 85% of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases result in custody for the alleged abuser and frequently little or no contact with the mother who sought to protect her child. This is a result of the difficulty in proving abuse of very young children and deeply flawed practices. Based especially on the new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders, we should start by eliminating court professionals who believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Professionals should be trained in best practices that would include understanding why a child might be reluctant to reveal sexual abuse or recant truthful allegations, use of play therapy for young children, avoid giving abusers additional opportunities to silence children and give children a chance to develop trusting relationships with therapists or other investigators before expecting them to discuss the abuse. We particularly need to abandon approaches that retaliate against mothers for good faith allegations.
13. Limit Role of Mental Health Professionals to their Area of Expertise:Mental health professionals are routinely used for evaluations and other services in domestic violence custody cases despite limited and often distorted information about domestic violence. This has contributed to the frequency in which courts place children in jeopardy. Mental health professionals have a role to play when a parent has a serious mental disorder that interferes with the ability to care for the children or other issues related to their field of study and practice. They should be limited to roles they are qualified for and at the very least consult with domestic violence experts on cases involving possible domestic violence.
14. Gender Bias: Over forty states and many districts have conducted court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias. Other scientific research supports these findings. Women who kill their partner receive seventy percent longer sentences under similar circumstances as men who kill their partner. Women are given less credibility, higher standards of proof and are blamed for the actions of their abusers. Courts cannot do an effective job of responding to domestic violence as long as it continues to unconsciously favor male litigants. Court professionals must be trained about gender bias, attorneys and litigants must be protected and encouraged to raise concerns about gender bias, judges and other court professionals should be transferred, retrained or otherwise disciplined for continued gender biased practices and appellate courts must reverse cases based on gender bias.
15. Improved Police Role in Ending Domestic Violence: Police should make domestic violence cases a high priority and conduct an evidence based investigation instead of just relying on the victim’s testimony. Police must be trained to understand fathers involved in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. This means they should take complaints from mothers seriously despite ongoing litigation, but have some skepticism of father’s allegations. They should always speak with the mother to understand the context before making a decision to make an arrest or bring charges. The police must also be aware that abusers tend to be very manipulative, but sometimes the police can use abusers’ sense of entitlement to encourage them to make statements that are actually admissions. Police departments must take precautions to respond to male officers who abuse their partners and particularly use their influence and relationship with other officers to undermine any investigation. There should be no tolerance for domestic violence or covering up domestic violence complaints. Departments should have a procedure for women to have someone in the department they can safely complain to about their partner’s abuse and any assistance other officers provide him.

Can Society Afford to Continue to Tolerate Domestic Violence?

Politicians sometimes justify their failure to do more to stop domestic violence by citing the costs, but the reality is the costs are much greater by tolerating domestic violence. In reviewing a report about the response to domestic violence in Dutchess County, New York, I noticed how often they undermined substantial parts of the plan to prevent domestic violence in order to save small sums of money. The problem is when they are budgeting; they fail to consider the extra money that will be expended as a result of the increase in domestic violence encouraged by the cutbacks.
Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful and costly behaviors including crime. Large majorities of the prison population were directly abused as children or witnessed domestic violence. This creates huge added expenses in police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys and prisons. It also creates more expenses in substance abuse treatment. This is in addition to the extra similar expenses in directly responding to domestic violence crimes and custody cases based on domestic violence.
An increase in domestic violence crimes also increases health care costs. Not only is the health care system used to heal the immediate physical wounds, but it leads to other medical problems based on the stress of living with domestic violence as well as emotional and psychological difficulties. If the woman has medical insurance his abuse is paid by all of the policy holders through higher premiums. If she does not have insurance she may not be able to pay for the care so that the rest of the public and the government ultimately pays. Many of the health costs are borne directly by various governmental entities.
When victims miss work it harms the economy thus reducing tax revenues. The same is true when women lose jobs because of injuries or repeated court dates. Government programs like unemployment insurance and crime victim compensation may also be triggered. Significantly domestic violence interferes with the ability to reach their potential. It is hard for women to reach their potential when dealing with domestic violence even if the injuries do not prove fatal. Men who commit domestic violence crimes can’t reach their potential if they are in jail and even if they are not jailed the time they waste abusing and harassing their partners can interfere with the ability to reach their potential. Children who witness domestic violence are significantly less likely to reach their potential and if the children grow up to hurt others these third parties also lose the ability to reach their potential. We don’t know if society will miss out on someone who would have discovered a medical cure, developed a patent, created a major new business or is just a productive member of society. All of this represents a massive loss of economic activity that translates into a huge loss of tax revenue.
While the proposal described above would include some additional expenses, it also includes plans that would save substantial tax dollars. Conducting early evidentiary hearings on domestic violence would help courts make better decisions, but also save substantial sums of money and judicial time. A large majority of contested custody cases which are the cases that take most of the court’s time are domestic violence cases. Since mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse, a hearing for an hour or two will avoid cases that often take many months or years. There will be no need to spend money on evaluators, GALs or other professionals who provide no help in recognizing or responding to domestic violence. Furthermore, as the practices outlined in this article become better known, abusive men will be less likely to commit domestic violence crimes and children will be sent an important message that domestic violence will not be tolerated. This will save significant sums initially and much greater amounts over time as the message resonates.
We don’t have figures on the full cost of domestic violence or the amount of money this proposal would save, but it has to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In that context attempting to save thousands of dollars by cutting local programs or a few million on programs nationally is counterproductive based on the financial costs and insane based on the human costs.
How to get Started Ending Domestic Violence
It is common rhetoric to say we should end domestic violence. We may not be able to prevent all domestic violence tactics or even all domestic violence crimes, but we know how to quickly create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes and especially domestic violence homicide. How do we get from here to there?
Just as people in Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California came together to make ending domestic violence the leading priority other communities can do the same and it is easier because they have the successes of those communities to look at and a lot of additional research. Individual states can take the lead by adopting the needed law changes and provide funding to implement a program like the one discussed in this article.
This can also be done on a national basis. The President can announce that we will no longer tolerate domestic violence and create a program to encourage communities to implement the practices that work. Grants and other support can be provided to set up pilot projects around the country to demonstrate that these practices will work. Eventually the federal government can make implementation of these practices a requirement if states wish to receive any federal funding for law enforcement and the judicial system. This should be done on a non-partisan basis. Democrats claim to be supporters of women so they should certainly wish to free women from the fear and risk of domestic violence. Republicans regularly propose spending millions of dollars to promote abstinence for children. If they don’t want children having sex with their peers they certainly will wish to protect them from sex with adults. The bills to end domestic violence should be House 1 and Senate 1 to make them the first priority.
Several years ago I gave a presentation with Mo Therese Hannah at the NCADV Conference in Atlanta. I spoke about the success of Quincy, Nashville and San Diego in implementing these practices. After the workshop, a woman came up to me and told me what I said was no longer true. It seems a new administration took over in Nashville, dismantled the successful program and the domestic violence homicide rate went back up. This was disappointing news, but it also confirmed that it was these practices that are the difference between a substantial reduction in domestic violence crime and requiring women’s lives to be impacted by men’s abuse of their intimate partners.
Domestic violence is not inevitable. It can be prevented. Our daughters and granddaughters can grow up in a world in which domestic violence crimes are rare. The worst crime would be if we take the knowledge, research and ability we have to substantially reduce domestic violence crimes and instead find some excuse to force women and children to continue to suffer.
Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Kansas Blue Ribbon Commission - Testimony of Claudine Dombrowski, June 6th, 2011-Washburn University - Robinson Courtroom. Topeka, Kansas

 

This was the last public meeting in Topeka. There will be three more in the State. However, Kansans can always submit comments via electronically to the Commission at: KSCourtStudyBRC@kscourts.org

The Commission will put together its investigative report  from the public meetings which is scheduled to be submitted in July 2011. You can follow along the process of the Blue Ribbon Commission through their website.

The Monday June 6, 2011 evening panel was held at Washburn University, Robinson Courtroom. The three Commission Panel Consisted of: Chair: Reggie Robinson, Mike Padilla and Senator John Vratil. Lisa Wilson of the Office of judicial Administration took the meeting minutes.

One important and positive topic of discussion of the use of technology was very easily made by a Court reporter- video/audio specialist.  It is inexpensive to implement at every level of the judiciary, it is cost effective, secure, factual, ensures transparency of court proceedings, pro se litigants having access to their court files and documents electronically would be an incredible asset – again at all levels. As we all know- technology rules the world. it is time for that technology to be used to ‘access justice’ at every level in our Kansas Judiciary.

I sincerely thank the commission for their appeared genuine sincerity in changing the current system, to one that works. The panel, was receptive, respectful, patient and very kind. Further comments were just as sincere. In all the years I have done public speaking or testimonies, I have never felt so ‘at ease’ as I did with the audience and the panel. For myself, this gives me hope that lady Justice can and will rise out of the ashes of the broken unjust system. it will entail a complete overhaul – but it can be done.

Testimony of Claudine Dombrowski

Listen to  Claudine Dombrowski

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Kansas Blue Ribbon Commission Panel

June 6^th, 2011 Washburn University, Robinson Courtroom

Testimony by Claudine Dombrowski

www.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com

www.KS-FCRC.com

www.AngelFury.org

Email: AngelFury@AngelFury.org

 

Summary: Introduction, Personal and Professional Experiences and Solutions

Dear Panel Members, my name is Claudine Dombrowski,

I am a Survivor /Advocate and Activist for Domestic Violence Victims and their Children. I am on the Kansas Secretary of State’s, Address Confidentiality Program - Safe At Home for Victims of Domestic Violence. I bring to this panel both Criminal and Family Court Failures.

I have been beaten with crowbars, thrown out of moving vehicles, have had both wrists and several ribs broken, thrown through plate glass windows, tied up, raped and sodomized then left in a crawl space for several days. Just to name a few of the Criminal Assaults-by an already 8 (Eight) time criminally convicted perpetrator to include but not limited to: (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana, Violation of Open Container law, Violation of Restraining Orders, Domestic Violence and Terroristic Death threats)

I am on 100% physical Disability related to the injuries.

See: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/outrage/

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas.

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

• Courts Continue Abuse of Manhattan Woman www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html
• Sham in Shawnee County http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas
• Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.
• Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
• Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.

I want to share a few key points of information that caused the complete ‘Failure of Justice’ for myself and for my daughter, that can assist you to enable ‘Access to Justice’ for other’s who enter the Judiciary, not being the current state of the Courts, the lawyers and Mental Health so called experts known as Therapeutic Jurisprudence- a lucrative business that denies access to justice to society’s most vulnerable victims, battered mothers and their children and only for profit. It’s monetary, it’s all about the money and it can be prevented.

I have provided extensive links for further information than my short statement could possibly provide today. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

In the few handouts that I have given out as well- I have already emailed the long version with links intact to the Blue Ribbon Commission KSCourtStudyBRC@kscourts.org

Briefly:

I am the lead Plaintiff at the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Known as “Dombrowski et el v US” which was filed on behalf of all battered mothers and their children Nationally for the Policy and Procedure’s of Family Courts routinely placing battered mothers children with the abusers and pedophiles. Abuse Continued via Judicial Abuse and Coercive Control that entraps women and their children and denying them their basic ‘human rights’ to be free from torture and abuse. www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas.

The State of Kansas Law Enforcement and the Kansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (KCSDV Press Statement here: (http://www.kcsdv.org/psmothers.html) are hard copy signors to the petition (http://www.scribd.com/doc/39685724/kcsdvhardcopy-iachr).

The petition can be viewed in its entirety on the Stop Family Violence web site. www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308 Court’s Order and Sanction Abuse, for perpetrators of family violence, by the Courts, through the courts while corruption, collusion and cronyism run rampant in “the best kept dirty little secrets of our family courts.”

I have been an outspoken advocate for victims of domestic violence since 1995. I have worked with experts and victims nationally and internationally, I have been an honored speaker for the past 6 years at the battered mother’s conference (www.BatteredMothersCustodyConfrence.org) in Albany New York. An annual Conference that brings advocates and professionals from around the Nation, including attorneys, Judges, Coalitions, Advocates and mother victims to address the issues of battered mothers loosing custody of their children to convicted batterers and pedophiles, KCSDV has attended the conference yearly since its inception.

I was ‘appointed’ by Attorney General Carla Stovall to serve on the ‘Violence Against Women and Children Committee’ in 1998 after I founded “Rikki’s Rights” – The Childs Best Interest in Domestic Violence Homes. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/38276495/1-20-1998-KS-AG-Letters-and-Appointment-to-Comittee-Claudine-Dom-Brow-Ski)

My case has been referenced in several scholarly articles, journals and research for up to date practices on access to justice for battered mothers and their children. I have done several media and news interviews (http://www.scribd.com/collections/2725388/Media) and participate in events by promoting the awareness of Domestic Violence and Child Custody in Kansas and Nationally since 1996 . http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=claudine+dombrowski&aq=f

I have been to the Kansas Appellate Court twice 1997 and 1998 and the Kansas State Supreme Court twice 1999 and 2000 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2728794

The Family Court and Criminal Court Overlap

While the Perpetrator of my assault and battery was still on probation for his Domestic Violence conviction against myself—he filed for full custody of my daughter—and he got it.

The last time I held my daughter she was 6 years old – July 31, 2000. I told her she had to go be with her dad, and she cried “Noooo mommy…. please,” In her broken small voice, as she courageously fought back the huge tears that had welled up in her eyes. Rikki my baby girl was taken from her mother and given to her admitted and criminally convicted father, she was never again to have any meaningful contact with her mother.

Although we held hope and believed that one day justice would prevail, it did not. Justice has been denied. My daughter, now age 16 ½ - I have no idea where she is, I have not been allowed any access or contact with her, I have been denied information to her school, her medical records (contrary to FERPA Law) nor have I been allowed to have a single photo of her in this past 11+ years. I have never been alleged to be a threat or harm nor have I been charged or convicted of any crime-contrary to that of the well documented history of violence of her father to which the Courts have placed her in.

I have testified several times at the Kansas State Legislature, most recently the Kansas legislature’s Joint Committee on Children’s Issue’s an excellent article of these testimonies are published at Kansas Watch Dog.org http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

As well as lobbying and passing into law a mandate that judges must follow the law- a result of Judge Dowd departing from sentencing guidelines.) http://blip.tv/wwwkansansforjudicialaccountabilitycom/august-2007-convicted-child-rapist-seeks-custody-of-his-children-776865 More by Kansans For Judicial Accountability Judge Dowd KFJA Video Media: http://blip.tv/wwwkansansforjudicialaccountabilitycom

Only to have the same judge break that law two days after the Governor signed it into law. Instead of being charged with a crime of ‘breaking a law’ like any other non ‘just-us’ person would be—Judge Dowd was rewarded for his unethical and illegal actions, by being appointed to Washburn Law school to ‘teach’ law. Criminal Rewards start with the Judiciary and follow into the pandemic failure of all who enter the Judiciary seeking ‘Justice’. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_BZmOX_YN8&feature=player_embedded

As you know, and have heard by many, all Judicial Complaints of Judges come back ‘rubber stamped’ no ethics violations, Judge Dowd was no exception to the rule. The Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Board is no better. Clear legal and ethical violations of an attorney GAL- Guardian ad Litem violating confidentiality rules, assaulting parties in the Courthouse halls, Police Reports and audio recordings- all come back rubber stamped ‘No Violations’, http://www.scribd.com/doc/56251013/2011-May-6-M-Jill-Dykes-Gets-Again-Rubber-Stampped-No-Violations whilst they still get paid monthly from county tax dollars for being on a case that that they never work.

• GAL Threatens, attempted assault, release of confidential information audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZJd3Th37U
• Jill Dykes http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jill+dykes&aq=f
• Guardian AD Chargem- M. Jill Dykes Topeka KS paid for by YOUR Tax$ http://mjilldykes.blogspot.com/2010/06/guardian-ad-chargem-m-jill-dykes-topeka.html
• INJUSTICE IN OZ-- ARE JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM AND GAL M. JILL DYKES ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD OR ENGAGED IN A COVER-UP?
  http://kmfcj.blogspot.com/2011/06/injustice-in-oz-are-judge-david.html
• THE COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF TOPEKA KANSAS-- FAMILY COURT MAFIA AKA CHILD TRAFFICKING http://jilldykes.blogspot.com/2010/10/this-cottage-industry-of-topeka-kansas.html

Originally, this case was presented at the 1997 and 1998 Kansas Judicial Initiatives Commission Hearings by three different organizations. The Kansas Justice Commission in 1997. news articles published the case as a “judicial outrage” when presented at the Commission Hearings. The Judiciary has only gotten worst since those late 90’s ‘hearings’ not unlike what the current Blue Ribbon Commission is charged with now.

1997 Judicial Initiative Commission hearings by

• NOW 12-10-1997 Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing http://www.scribd.com/doc/38276515/12-10-1997-Judicial-Initative-Commission-Hearing
• And by Johnson County Citizens For Good Judges 12-3-1997 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38276511/12-3-1997-CitzensForGoodJudges-Judicial-Initative-Commission-Hearing
• Related News articles: 12-4-1997 KC Star Tony Rizzo-KS Justice Commission –Dombrowski And http://www.scribd.com/doc/38276500/11-20-1997-KC-Star-Tony-Rizzo-Judicial-Hearings
• Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.
• Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
• Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.
• Kansas Senate Joint Committee on Children’s Issue Written Testimony here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=18449340
• MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.



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

 

SOLUTIONS:

I strongly urge that if you do nothing else that you watch these three documentaries that detail the family court corruption and the genocide of battered mothers and their children when they dare to leave a violent relationship with her children and enter Family courts thinking mistakenly that the courts would protect. That they had the human ‘right’ to be free of violence, when they do not.

1. 2005 PBS Documentary: Breaking The Silence; Children’s StorieView in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/3314727-8-2008-bts-wmv?u=ampp&c=ampp
2. 2008 Family law Documentary by the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org Crisis in the Family Courts; Our Children at Risk - View in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/3586260-family-court-crisis-our-children-at-risk-silent-no-more?u=ampp&c=ampp
3. 2010 Domestic Violence Continued: High Conflict Child Custody Litigation View in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/4904503-dr-sharon-k-araji-talks-about-domestic-violence-in-contested-child-custody?u=ampp&c=ampp
4. 2011 No Way Out But One is a documentary currently in post-production http://nowayoutbutone.com/index.html

 

By eliminating the “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” you will have cut the high cost of family Court and help to ensure ‘equal access to justice’ under the constitution. Technology is ‘key’ to all realms of the Judiciary. Publicizing and e filing is the best way to cut costs and ensure pro se litigants have equal access to their own court documents. It as well opens up the closed doors and shines a light giving less opportunity for corruption to grow.

There MUST be Transparency and accountability and consequences for derelict Judges and renegade Attorneys, Mental Health side kicks and other ‘friends of the courts’- known as (3^rd party profiteers) They are why the system is so corrupt and they alone are causing the increased costs of running courts because after all is “Just-Us” and they line their pockets well.

REMOVE all ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ which denies access to justice. Remove the mental health so called professionals , mediators, case managers, co-parenting, shared parenting and high conflict - shared parenting programs, who make a fortune by doing custody evaluations and taking a high conflict case’s translates into DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and ABUSE—‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ workers who by keeping high conflict -as such--- so that they can guarantee a continued payout from that case for the entire life of a childhood whom they claim to be working for the ‘best interest’ for many years, until age 18 when the children finally age out or die. Whichever comes first.

Judicial enforcement of Criminal laws into Family Court. Criminals should not be allowed to be sole custodian of small children period.

As Americans For Prosperity recently posted article--about this case and other outrageous cases by Kansas Judges: http://www.patrioticthunder.com/localissues.html

“Common sense says if you rape a little girl or beat the hell out of your wife you shall get punished for that in a severe matter. However, the list of outrage goes on. We believe at Patriotic Thunder that a Judge should have the ability to "depart" from the traditional sentencing, but dammit, use some common sense in ALL your cases and throw out the absurd ones, don't entertain this crap.

The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals - Legislative Reforms Needed

The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals - Legislative Reforms Needed

Posted in Uncategorized by americanmotherspoliticalparty

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:

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Help me, help me - I am so caught, my child trafficking ring is falling apart- Help me make more money off the blood of children

Perpetrator of Cyberstalking! (and of child trafficking)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

This disturbed individual has: threatened my daughters safety, posted my deceased mother's obituary, stated she had purchased a rifle with my Visa, and stated that my "days are numbered". Please help me get the word out about this deranged person that is impersonating me. (You have a daughter? Really? Thank you for informing us—like we care. Oh, your dead mom- public record. Visa? Really? Is this the best you can do? Yawn)

Rene M. Netherton

Posted by Rene Netherton at 11:11 AM 0 comments

Rene M.Netherton-Perpetrator of Cyberstalking and Court Appointed Child Abuse

Please be aware that many pages posted on the internet conerning myself, Rene M. Netherton, are actually posts that are true and accurate. I am full of vile, malicious, defamatory and disgusting comments in my illegal and criminal activities. Currently, law enforcement and other agencies are dealing with this cyberstalking. (You are so delusional—Good because we want you exposed even more) Any interested individual may merely google my name Rene Marie Netherton to see the other victims of my mental instability.(it goes both ways you are not in family court now, you cannot hide behind your back room deals on the www)

Rene M. Netherton

Friday, April 29, 2011

Rene M Netherton

Thank God this crazy woman has taken me off of her radar! (Nope-You are wrong again those who have the blood of children on their hands are never off the radar) She is now attacking other people and not me or my family. To the others being attacked, it will end soon as law enforcement now has MY google records and can now file criminal charges to my already CRIMINAL convictions. (Yes you are deranged it will end only when Justice is served. Your oh so typical bottom dweller threats—ambulance chasing rabid dogs, We have been working with DOJ –that dear girl is where you report cyber stalking- being an attorney even one who made it through law scholl on her knees –should know that- I guess not. Yawn)

Posted by Rene Netherton at 2:15 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Rene M. Netherton

I am just trying to let anyone know that the posts about me are true and correct. I am a deranged individual, whom I have had no association with since 2002 when I was the attorney appointed to represent her sweet daughter. (Attorney ethical violations huh? –just a few more) Law Enforcement is dealing with her and soon all of the horrible sites in my name will be gone. (Yawn—what is written on the www is written forever, the truth always stands—Always. Evil child trafficking and profiting of court appointed child abusers—your days are numbered. As you all are being exposed. You can Run, you can hide, but the truth is already out there—perhaps you should up the dosage of your medication—again.)

Rene M. Netherton

Posted by Rene Netherton at 4:03 PM 0 comments

(I really think I should write my name more, I don't think the real world got it yet, Google hits loves it!)