Thank's to a well-known NH Paralegal and Family Advocate, Denise-Marie McIntosh, I was just recently made aware of the appeal of Nashua DCYF worker Tracy Roukey on her demotion of August 25, 2010, from Supervisor IV to CPSW III.
After reading her appeal, I was in total shock and am baffled as to the demotion of one Supervisor when so many more Supervisor's in the same Nashua Office are guilty of the same offenses. I ask myself, "Why was Tracy Rouky singled out?" I know some parent's believe she deserved to be demoted, but what about the rest of the Nashua Supervisor's, also guilty?
I in no way am condoning any of Tracy Roukey's alleged offenses, but I believe what's good for one is good for the other. So why wasn't the Nashua Office completely overhauled?
One of the offenses mentioned in the appeal was she failed to properly supervise and direct [her] Child Protective Service Worker (CPSW) staff so that incarcerated parents and uncooperative parents are engaged in the case planning process for their children, which is in directive [sic] violation of DCYF best
case practice." Oh and isn't this merely an Administrative Rule? Administrative Rules that DCYF feel they don't have to abide by?
That's strange because former Supervisor (Assessment worker) Melissa Deane was guilty of the same offense when she stole my granddaughter and assigned CPSW Kris Geno to my daughter's case. My daughter was never included in the case planning. Everything DCYF expected her to do was already written up by Kris Geno. My daughter had no say and was threatened by Kris Geno to sign it or never see her daughter again.
When Melissa Deane signed the Title IV-A application for parent's on TANF, eligible for TANF or signing up for TANF, because my daughter refused to because she was none of the above, why wasn't she demoted or even fired?
When Melissa Deanne admitted in Court she had no idea my daughter was given Morphine in labor, (which spilled into the baby) and admitted she had no clue as to ALL the medical problems my daughter suffered from throughout her pregnancy, why wasn't she demoted or fired?
Wasn't Melissa Deane also responsible for CPSW Kris Geno when she perjured herself in Court, when she stated my daughter wasn't being drug tested and her LEGAL Methadone doses and levels weren't going down, yet her own contact log's and drug test report's show the opposite? After perjuring herself in Court, is it at all normal to tell the Foster stranger's,"Don't worry. There's no guarantee she's going anywhere." Was she following Melissa Deanes order's or was she being paid off?
Wasn't Melissa Deane responsible for CPSW Kris Geno when she told my daughter not to tell anyone her daughter was half Spanish? And why is being half Spanish a problem? Why should being half Spanish be kept a secret? No demotion and no loss of job.
Was Melissa Deane responsible for a fictitious mans rights being terminated instead of my granddaughter's REAL Father? She's no longer working there, but was she demoted or fired?
Another Supervisor (Assessment worker), Eric Corliss was guilty of the same offense when my other two grandchildren were stolen from my other daughter and CPSW Anna Salvatore Edlund was assigned to her case. My daughter was never included in the case planning either and she was also told by Anna to sign or never see her children again. Was Eric ever demoted or fired?
Was Eric Corliss overseeing CPSW Anna Salvatore Edlund when she followed my daughter for a week and told her and her husband if she didn't move out of their apartment they would never see their kids again?
Was Anna following Eric's order's when criminal charges were dropped against my daughter due to new found evidence, yet Anna and the CASA worker vowed to make sure the kid's weren't returned?
Was Eric the person responsible for a fictitious mans rights being terminated instead of my grandsons REAL father?
And what about the CPSW's who fail to visit children in foster homes? Who fail to fully investigate these homes and the people who live in them before placement of an innocent child? Who place children in homes where violent criminals live? Where children are exposed to much more danger than in their own homes? Were the Supervisor's in these cases demoted, fired or held accountable?
Or maybe all of these offenses were perpetrated by Tracey Gubbins. She seem's to be in on everything unethical in the Nashua Office. Were all of these people really following her order's? Is she also responsible for parent's not being given Family Rights booklet's? Why wasn't she demoted or fired?
I'm sure there are many more Nashua Supervisor's guilty of these offenses along with much worse offenses. After all, isn't NH known as the Child Snatcher State? So why was Tracy Roukey singled out? For that matter, why is the Nashua Office still open? And why is the crude Maggie Bishop still the Director?
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Edlund. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Edlund. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Bar Harbor police blotter-Anna the Homewrecker?
Could this be Anna the Homewrecker Former Nashua, NH DCYF Casewrecker?
Bar Harbor police blotter
Sept 01, 2010
Aug. 29
Anna J. Edlund, 32, of Southwest Harbor, was arrested for operating under the influence
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UBxvj0kOQv8J:mdi.villagesoup.com/news/story/bar-harbor-police-blotter/348189+Anna+Edlund+Bar+Harbor,+Maine&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Bar Harbor police blotter
Sept 01, 2010
Aug. 29
Anna J. Edlund, 32, of Southwest Harbor, was arrested for operating under the influence
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UBxvj0kOQv8J:mdi.villagesoup.com/news/story/bar-harbor-police-blotter/348189+Anna+Edlund+Bar+Harbor,+Maine&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Monday, December 19, 2011
A Nashua,NH DCYF Horror Story (With Add on's) Edited
A Nashua,NH DCYF Horror Story
(Add on's in BOLD)
On 8/30/05,A new Mother was admitted to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, in labor with her first child. She was a recovering addict, on Methadone, since the day she found out she was pregnant. She was given methadone, an epidural, pitocin, fentynal and a Morphine IV in labor for 19 ½ hour’s, as the baby was Placenta-Previa. Her daughter was born 8/31/05, healthy and of normal birth weight.
On 9/1/05, the new Mother was told by one of the Nurses her baby was perfectly healthy and would be going home with her on 9/2/05. Documentation from the hospital shows the baby met ALL criteria for discharge. The paper was signed by; Constance Levesque, RN; Margaret Speidel, RN; Laura Parkinson, RN And the hospital Social Worker, Kathy Lizotte.
On the evening of 9/1/05, Janice Watson form Healthy Steps Methadone Program for Pregnant Women, spoke to the Social Worker Kathy Lizotte and told her the baby was withdrawing and needed to be moved to NICU. She was moved at 10 PM that night for observation, as stated by one of the Nurses to the baby’s paternal Aunt. She was NOT moved there for withdrawl symptoms.
On the morning of 9/2/05, the baby’s paternal Aunt went to the hospital to visit the new mother and her child. The mother and Aunt went to NICU, where the mother was handed the wrong baby. A coke addicted baby with no bracelet’s or security alarm on. The Mother told the Nurse it wasn’t her baby. The Nurse argued with her and told her she was hallucinating, that this WAS her baby. The Mother got angry and flipped out. The Nurse finally took the baby and brought back the right baby to the Mother and her Aunt, who also had no bracelet’s or security alarm on, even though they were put on her at the time of her birth. She told the hospital staff she wanted her daughter transferred to St. Joseph’s Hospital and was threatened with being arrested if she tried to transfer her. The baby’s Aunt has filed an Affidavit of the truth with the NH Redress Grievance Committee.
Soon after, on the same day, the new Mother was reported to DCYF by SW Kathy Lizotte, who reported the baby was withdrawing and had illegal drug’s in her system. The Toxicology test result’s weren’t even back until 9/4/05, which showed Morphine in the baby. The morphine given to the Mother in labor.
On or about 9/14/05, a false report was called into DCYF against the new Mother’s sister, who was staying in the grandparents home with her two children. The report stated her children were being molested. They weren’t told by who, or where. They immediately took both children to SNHMC and had them checked. There was NO evidence of any kind of abuse. The next morning they gave the hospital paperwork to DCYF Assessment worker Tracy Roukie. She stated the case was unfounded and would close the case, Edited-but it was NEVER signed by the Supervisor until 9/29/05, so even though the family Believed the case was closed and were told the case was closed, in all actuality it wasn't until it was signed. In cases such as these, unfounded reports "should" be signed the same day the report is deemed UNFOUNDED!
On 9/21/05, DCYF Assessment worker Melissa Deane filed paperwork with the Nashua District Court for abuse and neglect against the new Mother, who never even got to take her daughter home from the hospital.
On 9/26/05, outside of the courtroom, the Grandmother asked for custody of her newborn granddaughter. DCYF Atty. Kate McClure told the Grandmother “not with sexual molestation going on in your house.” The Grandmother asked her what she was talking about and told her no such thing ever happened at HER house. She stated it would be proven in court. The Grandmother told her it wouldn’t, because it never happened. Soon after the Grandmother found out her estranged son-in-law, who didn’t live in her home and never visited the kid’s, was the person accused. There was NO investigation and he was Never questioned.
On 9/26/05, at the Preliminary hearing in District Court, DCYF Atty. Kate McClure told Judge Leary the children WERE being sexually abused in the Grandparent’s home. No proof, nothing. Just hearsay. The new Mother was only allowed to say it wasn’t true, but nothing else. No-one was allowed in the courtroom to support the new Mother. Because of the proven false report, the Grandparent’s were Never allowed custody of their granddaughter. Judge Leary court-ordered the new Mother’s and her newborn’s record’s, but negligently failed to court order the new Mother’s prenatal medical file. Judge Leary ordered foster placement for the newborn, without services to prevent placement as mandated by State and Federal Law.
Edited on 7/13/15- On 9/29/05 the Assessment against
On 9/28/05, DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane tried to make the new Mother sign an application for Title IV-A Funding for services. The new Mother refused to sign as she was NOT on TANF, was NOT eligible for TANF and had NO intentions on signing up for TANF, so Melissa Deane signed it herself, illegally.
On 10/3/05, the newborn was taken by DCYF from the hospital and placed with a couple in Hudson, NH, Mark and Barbara XXXXX, who never had children of their own and who did NOT meet Residence requirement’s in the state of NH, whose first question to Melissa Deane was, “When will we be financially supplemented?”
Before the newborn was taken, a family member called DCYF and spoke to Nashua Supervisor Tracey Gubbin’s requesting the newborn be placed in his home. She responded with, ”Relative placement is NOT an option. The baby is going into foster care, period.”
On 10/31/05,05 the Adjudicatory hearing was held. Again, no-one was allowed in the courtroom. The new Mother’s court-appointed Lawyer, Brian Major, failed to subpoena any witnesses to testify in her behalf, even though he was given a list of witnesses. Janice Watson from Healthy Steps testified for the state. Under oath, she stated the Methadone given to the new Mother in labor didn’t have time to reach the baby, so the Morphine wouldn’t have either. The toxicology report show’s the newborn was NEVER tested for Methadone. At the time, the new Mother didn’t have the Tox report as ALL of her records were kept from her until Feb.06. She was finally given her record’s from the Hospital and the Health Center after her Endocrinologist requested her records. She was diagnosed with Sheehan Syndrome, which is rare in this country, seen more so in third world countries and is caused by bad medical care. In her case, her pituitary gland hemorrhaged in labor due to the natural birth of a placenta previa baby. Her Lawyer refused to let her see her records or make copies, stating the court didn’t pay him enough. When asked why he didn't fight for the mother, he stated, "Because the court is my boss." The new Mother was charged with anticipated Neglect In the future.
On 11/1/05, the new Mother was threatened she would never see her daughter again by CPSW Kris Geno, if she didn’t sign the case plan. Geno told her there would be no funding for visitation or drug testing. There were no services offered before the baby was taken or after.
On 11/2/05 the new Mother filed a motion with the court for new representation and was denied. She filed again on 3/12/06 and on 9/19/07 and was denied, even after stating she would represent herself. There was no signature by any Judge. Brian Major also filed a Motion to Withdraw on 5/06/06 and was denied.
On 12/7/05, the Dispositional hearing was held. Judge Eward Tenney officiated. The new Mother was court-ordered OUT of Methadone treatment in order to regain custody of her daughter, which is both illegal and discriminatory. Judge Tenney court-ordered her into Medical Methadone Detox, a program that didn’t exist in NH and court-ordered her into Odyssey House after she was off the Methadone. CPSW Kris Geno told the new Mother not to start detoxing on her own as it would be too dangerous and guaranteed she would get her into Medical detox after being accepted by Odyssey.
Atty. Brian Major refused to file for a De Novo appeal, stating it would have the same outcome. He also told the Grandmother that if she had told DCYF what they wanted to hear, she would have gotten custody of her granddaughter. They wanted the grandmother to go against her daughter and say that she was using drugs when all she was on was LEGAL Methadone, which was PROVEN.
The grandparents filed for Guardianship of their granddaughter and were denied by Judge James Patten. At the hearing the Judge couldn’t figure out how the new Mother could be charged with abuse or neglect, seeing as she never took her baby home from the hospital. Atty. Kate McClure answered him with “Neglect in the Future. We believe she’ll neglect her in the future.” Judge Patten went along with it.
The new Mother’s sister was arrested by the Nashua PD, while at SNHMC on the evening of 1/19/06 for intoxication, which was later changed to child endangerment, as her 4 yr. old daughter was with her. Her 6 yr. old son was left at home with a babysitter, who left him there alone, sleeping. The two children were placed in the grandparent’s home that night by the PD. Toxicology reports from that night prove there was no alcohol in her system. She was on prescribed medication. Her medical records were also hidden for almost six months.
A Preliminary hearing was held on 1/24/06, where Judge James Leary ruled to leave the two children in the grandparents home, against the objection of DCYF Atty. Darrin Hood-Tucker, who didn’t want the children to have contact with their Aunt because she had an open case. No services were offered to prevent placement in this case either. The sister was also threatened into signing a Case plan, by Anna Salvatore Edlund. She was told the same thing as the new Mother (her sister)was told. If she didn’t sign, she would never see her kid’s again. She was also told to move out of the new apartment she shared with her husband. She was stalked for a week by DCYF, who reported back to her husband. The Aunt and her husband were both told if she didn’t move out, neither of them would see their kid’s again, even though the children were in foster care at the time, not living in their home.
On 1/25/06 the new Mother was arrested on a warrant for charges from 9/29/05, after losing custody of her daughter. Her parent’s bailed her out on or about 2/2/06 due to the need for urgent medical care.
On 2/03/06, the Grandmother went to the courthouse to get the paperwork for the children stating she and her husband had temporary custody. The Grandmother was met by Atty. Tucker who told her DCYF didn’t want the new Mother around her niece and nephew even though Judge Leary knew she lived in the grandparent’s home. She stated , “The Judge has no say. It’s all up to me.” The grandmother called her grandson’s school and had him dismissed and rushed home, afraid DCYF would take him out of school. In a matter of fifteen minutes, DCYF and four Police officers were at the Grandparent’s house. They told the Grandfather they had a court order and a warrant to take the kid’s, but refused to show either. They dragged their grandson down the street kicking and screaming, while the neighbor’s watched in horror. The Grandparent’s just recently found out there was NO court order or warrant. DCYF state in their paperwork, the children were removed because their Aunt was using illegal substances around the children, which wasn’t possible seeing as CPSW Kris Geno was randomly drug testing their Aunt and the only drug in her was legal Methadone from her Methadone treatment program. They also stated there was already a court order in place for no contact, but there wasn’t.
The children were placed in Merrimack, in the foster home of Jessie and David XXXXXXX. In Sept. 06, the grandson tried to hang himself from the bunkbed’s in his room. He then reportedly started showing very violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before being taken. He was taken to SNHMC by the Merrimack Police, where his family was NOT allowed to see him. CPSW Anna Salvatore told his mother if she didn’t sign for him to be placed in Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital, the Judge would court order it and she would lose all her rights. They transported him to Philbrook. The Doctor told the family he knew what was wrong with him, but he was still put on psycho-tropic medication. The only thing he wanted was to be with his Grampie.
In Feb. 06, the new Mother’s prenatal records and hospital record’s finally surfaced. Her court-appointed puppet refused to file a motion to have them admitted, so her mother tried to get them admitted and was refused by Judge Leary. Prenatal files Judge Leary neglected to order in the first place. Judge Leary told the new Mother to bring in the evidence and when she did, he refused to admit it into evidence. Her puppet also refused to file a motion to have the charges dismissed.
The Grandmother filed motion's with the court for visitation and custody. She received court papers telling her to be at two Review Hearings. After taking off of work both day's, she was NOT admitted into the courtroom. Judge Bamberger officiated. When the Hearing's were over, she was told by the clerk the motions were denied.
The Grandmother was admitted into the courtroom once, after filing a Motion to intervene, for both grandchildren and was again denied by Judge Bamberger.
The new Mother was notified by CPSW Kris Geno at the beginning of March that she was accepted at Odyssey House and needed to be there on 3/08/06, but had to be off methadone. ATTY Major stated Kris Geno was calling everywhere to get the mother into Medical Detox. There were no records or call log’s in the mother’s file to prove she was. The new mother’s mother called everywhere and was told every time, Medical detox had been cut from the budget. There was NO medical detox in NH. It didn’t exist. She then contacted many medical detox facilities in Ma. who agreed to admit the new Mother, but Kris Geno refused to let her go to Ma.
The new Mother started detoxing on her own and was being drug tested. She was then given a date for admittance to Odyssey House on 3/30/06. She was on 85 mgs. of Methadone when she started detoxing and was down to 9 mgs. on 3/28/06, when CPSW Geno called the Methadone Clinic to check on her dosage. She had her last dose on 3/29/06, the morning of her review hearing. CPSW Geno told Judge Leary that the Mother’s doses weren’t going down, the levels weren’t going down and she wasn’t being drug tested. Drug test results from her file show she WAS being drug tested and the level’s were going down. Kris Geno’s call log’s also prove the doses were going down, per the Methadone Clinic. Without any evidence given by Kris Geno, the Mother was denied admittance to Odyssey House. Kris Geno left the courtroom and spoke to the foster stranger’s. She told them, ”Don’t worry. There’s no guarantee she’s going anywhere.”
The new Mother was then accepted into the same type of facility in Ma. Again, Kris Geno refused to let her go with her daughter, but it was alright to let the foster stranger's take her newborn baby out of state, after it was rubberstamped by the Judges who do whatever DCYF tell's them to do.
The new Mother went back to the Methadone Program, now realizing no matter what she did, her daughter would never be returned. She admitted herself into Phoenix House in Keene to detox in Nov. 06. She also was admitted to Serenity Place on 2/23/07 and was temporarily medically discharged on 3/14/07. She was charged the same day with a probation violation for not finishing the program. Judge Raymond Cloutier stated the opposite of this testimony and proof at the TPR hearing, which included his statement that the new Mother’s probation was violated for a dirty drug test. He also stated the new Mother refused to go to Serenity Place as offered and opted to go to Prison instead. DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane testified at the hearing that she didn’t know the new Mother was given morphine in labor. She never investigated. The new Mother’s right’s to her daughter were terminated on 8/1/07. The termination was appealed, but NOT overturned. The Supreme Court decision stated Judge Cloutier made no errors. No, he wrote the opposite of testimony and evidence in his decision but they don't call that errors?
The baby’s father was never contacted by the State of NH. A fictitious man’s right’s were terminated as the father of the baby. The new Mother found that DCYF provided the court with another man’s name, not the father’s name. She filed an affidavit of paternity on 3/6/08 with the Hillsborough County Probate Court. Judge Patten denied ever receiving the affidavit, even though the affidavit was in an objection brief filed by County Attorney Woodard. Judge Patten granted the adoption of the baby on 3/10/08. Her father was denied paternity testing and the right to challenge the adoption of his daughter, twice. During this time, the Grandmother had an appeal pending in Supreme Court to stay the adoption of the baby, after being denied a Motion to Reconsider by Judge Patten twice. The adoption of the baby was granted while the grandmother’s appeal was pending. Again ILLEGAL.
The two grandchildren, that were first placed with their grandparent’s were placed in St. Charles Children’s home in Rochester after their grandson was released from Philbrook hospital. He has since been put on Adderall for ADHD, which he was tested for in Nashua before he was taken and found NOT to have.
The grandparent’s were told NOT to try to contact the home. Their mother was given a new caseworker after not having one for four months. She suggested the grandparent’s call the home, so they did. They were finally allowed monthly visits until the parent-aide brought up the children’s mother’s name, in which their grandson responded with, ”XXXXX isn’t my mother anymore.” He said that’s what he was told. His grandmother told him,”yes she is your mother and always will be no matter what.” That was the last time they saw him.
The Grandmother wrote many letters, all over the State of NH as well as all over the country. NH DHHS Commissioner Nicolas Toumpas finally told DCYF to do a home study with the grandparents for their grandsons placement. It took eight months. The new caseworker started it and told the grandparent’s she wanted XXXXXX placed with them. Then she left DCYF. The adoption worker then took over, whom the grandmother had met at Foster care classes. She also said she was advocating for the grandparents. The Home Study was never totally completed. There was only one visit from DCYF. Nothing else. No proof of finances, no home inspection, nothing. There were many false statements in the home study made by Tracey Gubbins, who signed off the incomplete home study.
After calling Commissioner Toumpas several times, Lorraine Bartlett called and set up a meeting with the grandparent’s, who were denied custody of their grandson. They were then denied an Administrative appeal’s hearing. The Manager of the Aministrative Appeals unit, John Dabuliewicz told the Grandmother they don’t do appeals for people denied placement, but that isn’t what the foster care book’s state. Lorraine Bartlett wanted the Grandparents to sit down with the adoption worker and write a good-bye letter to their grandson, telling him it was okay to move on. They refused. Maggie Bishop told the Grandmother she should have left her daughter in jail to die, stating if it were her child, that’s exactly what she would have done. Then she came back with, “Why isn’t XXXXX dead?”
The two children’s Mother’s records from the night the children were taken were also missing. They were finally given to her almost six months after the kid’s were taken. The criminal charges of being intoxicated and child endangerment were dismissed, due to her new found evidence, but CPSW Salvatore and the CASA worker vowed to make sure the kid’s weren’t returned. The Mother’s court appointed Atty. Diane Griffith filed a Motion with the court on 9/19/06 to have the neglect charges be dismissed and the new evidence be admitted into court. The motion was denied by Judge LaFrancois.
The Mother received paperwork from the Sherriff stating her son’s father’s right’s were being terminated on 9/25/07. The paperwork stated the wrong man. She and her mother told the CPSW this was NOT his father, who responded with, ”Oh well. No big deal.” They were well aware this was NOT her son’s father, as they had in their possession his birth certificate, along with his father’s address and his Social Security number. He was NEVER contacted. He had been deported when her son was a newborn. So they terminated a fictitious man’s rights again.
The Mother’s rights were terminated by Judge Raymond Cloutier in June of 2008. ALL State witnesses testified that the little boy wanted to live with his grandparents. His mother appealed due to errors made by Judge Cloutier, but her case was NOT overturned. Both grandchildren’s illegal adoptions were granted by Judge James Patten of the Hillsborough County Probate Court.
The grandparent’s filed for custody of both children several times. They were denied every time. The grandmother was denied a foster care license also, on the assumption she would not cooperate with DCYF. Would you cooperate after being slandered and victimized by a rogue government agency?
The Grandmother has in her possession, an e-mail from Maggie Bishop, stating a Home Study would be done with the Grandparent's for placement of their Grandson in their home.
The grandmother also has in her possession an e-mail from Lorraine Bartlett which states she and her husband were only afforded the Home Study to show them why they would not be a good placement for their grandson. It also state’s their grandson was in a pre-adoptive home in December of 2009 and his name was already changed, which is illegal.
Judge Bamberger sat on the bench for both daughter’s criminal charges, as well as sitting on the bench many times for their child custody cases. He definitely showed his bias against both of them, stating, “It’s too bad if your children were taken illegally. It’s too late. You didn’t file a De Novo appeal.” Wasn’t that up to their court appointed puppet’s, who both refused? Then why does it go against parent’s? Why are parent’s treated worse than convicted criminal’s?
Relative placement is not an option in Nashua, services are NOT provided to at-risk families before a child is placed in foster care, family and friend’s of the accused are NOT ever allowed into the courtroom, the accused is NOT allowed to speak in court AND court CD’s proving perjury by states witnesses are NEVER given to the accused, even after several motion’s are filed. There is NO Due Process in NH Family Court and NH DCYF are known as the Destroyer’s of Children, Youth and Families.
The “Secret” Court’s need to be opened and jury trial’s for all accused parent’s. That’s the only way to stop the abuse aimed at Children and Families!
unhappygrammy
(Add on's in BOLD)
On 8/30/05,A new Mother was admitted to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, in labor with her first child. She was a recovering addict, on Methadone, since the day she found out she was pregnant. She was given methadone, an epidural, pitocin, fentynal and a Morphine IV in labor for 19 ½ hour’s, as the baby was Placenta-Previa. Her daughter was born 8/31/05, healthy and of normal birth weight.
On 9/1/05, the new Mother was told by one of the Nurses her baby was perfectly healthy and would be going home with her on 9/2/05. Documentation from the hospital shows the baby met ALL criteria for discharge. The paper was signed by; Constance Levesque, RN; Margaret Speidel, RN; Laura Parkinson, RN And the hospital Social Worker, Kathy Lizotte.
On the evening of 9/1/05, Janice Watson form Healthy Steps Methadone Program for Pregnant Women, spoke to the Social Worker Kathy Lizotte and told her the baby was withdrawing and needed to be moved to NICU. She was moved at 10 PM that night for observation, as stated by one of the Nurses to the baby’s paternal Aunt. She was NOT moved there for withdrawl symptoms.
On the morning of 9/2/05, the baby’s paternal Aunt went to the hospital to visit the new mother and her child. The mother and Aunt went to NICU, where the mother was handed the wrong baby. A coke addicted baby with no bracelet’s or security alarm on. The Mother told the Nurse it wasn’t her baby. The Nurse argued with her and told her she was hallucinating, that this WAS her baby. The Mother got angry and flipped out. The Nurse finally took the baby and brought back the right baby to the Mother and her Aunt, who also had no bracelet’s or security alarm on, even though they were put on her at the time of her birth. She told the hospital staff she wanted her daughter transferred to St. Joseph’s Hospital and was threatened with being arrested if she tried to transfer her. The baby’s Aunt has filed an Affidavit of the truth with the NH Redress Grievance Committee.
Soon after, on the same day, the new Mother was reported to DCYF by SW Kathy Lizotte, who reported the baby was withdrawing and had illegal drug’s in her system. The Toxicology test result’s weren’t even back until 9/4/05, which showed Morphine in the baby. The morphine given to the Mother in labor.
On or about 9/14/05, a false report was called into DCYF against the new Mother’s sister, who was staying in the grandparents home with her two children. The report stated her children were being molested. They weren’t told by who, or where. They immediately took both children to SNHMC and had them checked. There was NO evidence of any kind of abuse. The next morning they gave the hospital paperwork to DCYF Assessment worker Tracy Roukie. She stated the case was unfounded and would close the case, Edited-but it was NEVER signed by the Supervisor until 9/29/05, so even though the family Believed the case was closed and were told the case was closed, in all actuality it wasn't until it was signed. In cases such as these, unfounded reports "should" be signed the same day the report is deemed UNFOUNDED!
On 9/21/05, DCYF Assessment worker Melissa Deane filed paperwork with the Nashua District Court for abuse and neglect against the new Mother, who never even got to take her daughter home from the hospital.
On 9/26/05, outside of the courtroom, the Grandmother asked for custody of her newborn granddaughter. DCYF Atty. Kate McClure told the Grandmother “not with sexual molestation going on in your house.” The Grandmother asked her what she was talking about and told her no such thing ever happened at HER house. She stated it would be proven in court. The Grandmother told her it wouldn’t, because it never happened. Soon after the Grandmother found out her estranged son-in-law, who didn’t live in her home and never visited the kid’s, was the person accused. There was NO investigation and he was Never questioned.
On 9/26/05, at the Preliminary hearing in District Court, DCYF Atty. Kate McClure told Judge Leary the children WERE being sexually abused in the Grandparent’s home. No proof, nothing. Just hearsay. The new Mother was only allowed to say it wasn’t true, but nothing else. No-one was allowed in the courtroom to support the new Mother. Because of the proven false report, the Grandparent’s were Never allowed custody of their granddaughter. Judge Leary court-ordered the new Mother’s and her newborn’s record’s, but negligently failed to court order the new Mother’s prenatal medical file. Judge Leary ordered foster placement for the newborn, without services to prevent placement as mandated by State and Federal Law.
Edited on 7/13/15- On 9/29/05 the Assessment against
On 9/28/05, DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane tried to make the new Mother sign an application for Title IV-A Funding for services. The new Mother refused to sign as she was NOT on TANF, was NOT eligible for TANF and had NO intentions on signing up for TANF, so Melissa Deane signed it herself, illegally.
On 10/3/05, the newborn was taken by DCYF from the hospital and placed with a couple in Hudson, NH, Mark and Barbara XXXXX, who never had children of their own and who did NOT meet Residence requirement’s in the state of NH, whose first question to Melissa Deane was, “When will we be financially supplemented?”
Before the newborn was taken, a family member called DCYF and spoke to Nashua Supervisor Tracey Gubbin’s requesting the newborn be placed in his home. She responded with, ”Relative placement is NOT an option. The baby is going into foster care, period.”
On 10/31/05,05 the Adjudicatory hearing was held. Again, no-one was allowed in the courtroom. The new Mother’s court-appointed Lawyer, Brian Major, failed to subpoena any witnesses to testify in her behalf, even though he was given a list of witnesses. Janice Watson from Healthy Steps testified for the state. Under oath, she stated the Methadone given to the new Mother in labor didn’t have time to reach the baby, so the Morphine wouldn’t have either. The toxicology report show’s the newborn was NEVER tested for Methadone. At the time, the new Mother didn’t have the Tox report as ALL of her records were kept from her until Feb.06. She was finally given her record’s from the Hospital and the Health Center after her Endocrinologist requested her records. She was diagnosed with Sheehan Syndrome, which is rare in this country, seen more so in third world countries and is caused by bad medical care. In her case, her pituitary gland hemorrhaged in labor due to the natural birth of a placenta previa baby. Her Lawyer refused to let her see her records or make copies, stating the court didn’t pay him enough. When asked why he didn't fight for the mother, he stated, "Because the court is my boss." The new Mother was charged with anticipated Neglect In the future.
On 11/1/05, the new Mother was threatened she would never see her daughter again by CPSW Kris Geno, if she didn’t sign the case plan. Geno told her there would be no funding for visitation or drug testing. There were no services offered before the baby was taken or after.
On 11/2/05 the new Mother filed a motion with the court for new representation and was denied. She filed again on 3/12/06 and on 9/19/07 and was denied, even after stating she would represent herself. There was no signature by any Judge. Brian Major also filed a Motion to Withdraw on 5/06/06 and was denied.
On 12/7/05, the Dispositional hearing was held. Judge Eward Tenney officiated. The new Mother was court-ordered OUT of Methadone treatment in order to regain custody of her daughter, which is both illegal and discriminatory. Judge Tenney court-ordered her into Medical Methadone Detox, a program that didn’t exist in NH and court-ordered her into Odyssey House after she was off the Methadone. CPSW Kris Geno told the new Mother not to start detoxing on her own as it would be too dangerous and guaranteed she would get her into Medical detox after being accepted by Odyssey.
Atty. Brian Major refused to file for a De Novo appeal, stating it would have the same outcome. He also told the Grandmother that if she had told DCYF what they wanted to hear, she would have gotten custody of her granddaughter. They wanted the grandmother to go against her daughter and say that she was using drugs when all she was on was LEGAL Methadone, which was PROVEN.
The grandparents filed for Guardianship of their granddaughter and were denied by Judge James Patten. At the hearing the Judge couldn’t figure out how the new Mother could be charged with abuse or neglect, seeing as she never took her baby home from the hospital. Atty. Kate McClure answered him with “Neglect in the Future. We believe she’ll neglect her in the future.” Judge Patten went along with it.
The new Mother’s sister was arrested by the Nashua PD, while at SNHMC on the evening of 1/19/06 for intoxication, which was later changed to child endangerment, as her 4 yr. old daughter was with her. Her 6 yr. old son was left at home with a babysitter, who left him there alone, sleeping. The two children were placed in the grandparent’s home that night by the PD. Toxicology reports from that night prove there was no alcohol in her system. She was on prescribed medication. Her medical records were also hidden for almost six months.
A Preliminary hearing was held on 1/24/06, where Judge James Leary ruled to leave the two children in the grandparents home, against the objection of DCYF Atty. Darrin Hood-Tucker, who didn’t want the children to have contact with their Aunt because she had an open case. No services were offered to prevent placement in this case either. The sister was also threatened into signing a Case plan, by Anna Salvatore Edlund. She was told the same thing as the new Mother (her sister)was told. If she didn’t sign, she would never see her kid’s again. She was also told to move out of the new apartment she shared with her husband. She was stalked for a week by DCYF, who reported back to her husband. The Aunt and her husband were both told if she didn’t move out, neither of them would see their kid’s again, even though the children were in foster care at the time, not living in their home.
On 1/25/06 the new Mother was arrested on a warrant for charges from 9/29/05, after losing custody of her daughter. Her parent’s bailed her out on or about 2/2/06 due to the need for urgent medical care.
On 2/03/06, the Grandmother went to the courthouse to get the paperwork for the children stating she and her husband had temporary custody. The Grandmother was met by Atty. Tucker who told her DCYF didn’t want the new Mother around her niece and nephew even though Judge Leary knew she lived in the grandparent’s home. She stated , “The Judge has no say. It’s all up to me.” The grandmother called her grandson’s school and had him dismissed and rushed home, afraid DCYF would take him out of school. In a matter of fifteen minutes, DCYF and four Police officers were at the Grandparent’s house. They told the Grandfather they had a court order and a warrant to take the kid’s, but refused to show either. They dragged their grandson down the street kicking and screaming, while the neighbor’s watched in horror. The Grandparent’s just recently found out there was NO court order or warrant. DCYF state in their paperwork, the children were removed because their Aunt was using illegal substances around the children, which wasn’t possible seeing as CPSW Kris Geno was randomly drug testing their Aunt and the only drug in her was legal Methadone from her Methadone treatment program. They also stated there was already a court order in place for no contact, but there wasn’t.
The children were placed in Merrimack, in the foster home of Jessie and David XXXXXXX. In Sept. 06, the grandson tried to hang himself from the bunkbed’s in his room. He then reportedly started showing very violent behavior. Behavior he never experienced before being taken. He was taken to SNHMC by the Merrimack Police, where his family was NOT allowed to see him. CPSW Anna Salvatore told his mother if she didn’t sign for him to be placed in Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital, the Judge would court order it and she would lose all her rights. They transported him to Philbrook. The Doctor told the family he knew what was wrong with him, but he was still put on psycho-tropic medication. The only thing he wanted was to be with his Grampie.
In Feb. 06, the new Mother’s prenatal records and hospital record’s finally surfaced. Her court-appointed puppet refused to file a motion to have them admitted, so her mother tried to get them admitted and was refused by Judge Leary. Prenatal files Judge Leary neglected to order in the first place. Judge Leary told the new Mother to bring in the evidence and when she did, he refused to admit it into evidence. Her puppet also refused to file a motion to have the charges dismissed.
The Grandmother filed motion's with the court for visitation and custody. She received court papers telling her to be at two Review Hearings. After taking off of work both day's, she was NOT admitted into the courtroom. Judge Bamberger officiated. When the Hearing's were over, she was told by the clerk the motions were denied.
The Grandmother was admitted into the courtroom once, after filing a Motion to intervene, for both grandchildren and was again denied by Judge Bamberger.
The new Mother was notified by CPSW Kris Geno at the beginning of March that she was accepted at Odyssey House and needed to be there on 3/08/06, but had to be off methadone. ATTY Major stated Kris Geno was calling everywhere to get the mother into Medical Detox. There were no records or call log’s in the mother’s file to prove she was. The new mother’s mother called everywhere and was told every time, Medical detox had been cut from the budget. There was NO medical detox in NH. It didn’t exist. She then contacted many medical detox facilities in Ma. who agreed to admit the new Mother, but Kris Geno refused to let her go to Ma.
The new Mother started detoxing on her own and was being drug tested. She was then given a date for admittance to Odyssey House on 3/30/06. She was on 85 mgs. of Methadone when she started detoxing and was down to 9 mgs. on 3/28/06, when CPSW Geno called the Methadone Clinic to check on her dosage. She had her last dose on 3/29/06, the morning of her review hearing. CPSW Geno told Judge Leary that the Mother’s doses weren’t going down, the levels weren’t going down and she wasn’t being drug tested. Drug test results from her file show she WAS being drug tested and the level’s were going down. Kris Geno’s call log’s also prove the doses were going down, per the Methadone Clinic. Without any evidence given by Kris Geno, the Mother was denied admittance to Odyssey House. Kris Geno left the courtroom and spoke to the foster stranger’s. She told them, ”Don’t worry. There’s no guarantee she’s going anywhere.”
The new Mother was then accepted into the same type of facility in Ma. Again, Kris Geno refused to let her go with her daughter, but it was alright to let the foster stranger's take her newborn baby out of state, after it was rubberstamped by the Judges who do whatever DCYF tell's them to do.
The new Mother went back to the Methadone Program, now realizing no matter what she did, her daughter would never be returned. She admitted herself into Phoenix House in Keene to detox in Nov. 06. She also was admitted to Serenity Place on 2/23/07 and was temporarily medically discharged on 3/14/07. She was charged the same day with a probation violation for not finishing the program. Judge Raymond Cloutier stated the opposite of this testimony and proof at the TPR hearing, which included his statement that the new Mother’s probation was violated for a dirty drug test. He also stated the new Mother refused to go to Serenity Place as offered and opted to go to Prison instead. DCYF Assessment Worker Melissa Deane testified at the hearing that she didn’t know the new Mother was given morphine in labor. She never investigated. The new Mother’s right’s to her daughter were terminated on 8/1/07. The termination was appealed, but NOT overturned. The Supreme Court decision stated Judge Cloutier made no errors. No, he wrote the opposite of testimony and evidence in his decision but they don't call that errors?
The baby’s father was never contacted by the State of NH. A fictitious man’s right’s were terminated as the father of the baby. The new Mother found that DCYF provided the court with another man’s name, not the father’s name. She filed an affidavit of paternity on 3/6/08 with the Hillsborough County Probate Court. Judge Patten denied ever receiving the affidavit, even though the affidavit was in an objection brief filed by County Attorney Woodard. Judge Patten granted the adoption of the baby on 3/10/08. Her father was denied paternity testing and the right to challenge the adoption of his daughter, twice. During this time, the Grandmother had an appeal pending in Supreme Court to stay the adoption of the baby, after being denied a Motion to Reconsider by Judge Patten twice. The adoption of the baby was granted while the grandmother’s appeal was pending. Again ILLEGAL.
The two grandchildren, that were first placed with their grandparent’s were placed in St. Charles Children’s home in Rochester after their grandson was released from Philbrook hospital. He has since been put on Adderall for ADHD, which he was tested for in Nashua before he was taken and found NOT to have.
The grandparent’s were told NOT to try to contact the home. Their mother was given a new caseworker after not having one for four months. She suggested the grandparent’s call the home, so they did. They were finally allowed monthly visits until the parent-aide brought up the children’s mother’s name, in which their grandson responded with, ”XXXXX isn’t my mother anymore.” He said that’s what he was told. His grandmother told him,”yes she is your mother and always will be no matter what.” That was the last time they saw him.
The Grandmother wrote many letters, all over the State of NH as well as all over the country. NH DHHS Commissioner Nicolas Toumpas finally told DCYF to do a home study with the grandparents for their grandsons placement. It took eight months. The new caseworker started it and told the grandparent’s she wanted XXXXXX placed with them. Then she left DCYF. The adoption worker then took over, whom the grandmother had met at Foster care classes. She also said she was advocating for the grandparents. The Home Study was never totally completed. There was only one visit from DCYF. Nothing else. No proof of finances, no home inspection, nothing. There were many false statements in the home study made by Tracey Gubbins, who signed off the incomplete home study.
After calling Commissioner Toumpas several times, Lorraine Bartlett called and set up a meeting with the grandparent’s, who were denied custody of their grandson. They were then denied an Administrative appeal’s hearing. The Manager of the Aministrative Appeals unit, John Dabuliewicz told the Grandmother they don’t do appeals for people denied placement, but that isn’t what the foster care book’s state. Lorraine Bartlett wanted the Grandparents to sit down with the adoption worker and write a good-bye letter to their grandson, telling him it was okay to move on. They refused. Maggie Bishop told the Grandmother she should have left her daughter in jail to die, stating if it were her child, that’s exactly what she would have done. Then she came back with, “Why isn’t XXXXX dead?”
The two children’s Mother’s records from the night the children were taken were also missing. They were finally given to her almost six months after the kid’s were taken. The criminal charges of being intoxicated and child endangerment were dismissed, due to her new found evidence, but CPSW Salvatore and the CASA worker vowed to make sure the kid’s weren’t returned. The Mother’s court appointed Atty. Diane Griffith filed a Motion with the court on 9/19/06 to have the neglect charges be dismissed and the new evidence be admitted into court. The motion was denied by Judge LaFrancois.
The Mother received paperwork from the Sherriff stating her son’s father’s right’s were being terminated on 9/25/07. The paperwork stated the wrong man. She and her mother told the CPSW this was NOT his father, who responded with, ”Oh well. No big deal.” They were well aware this was NOT her son’s father, as they had in their possession his birth certificate, along with his father’s address and his Social Security number. He was NEVER contacted. He had been deported when her son was a newborn. So they terminated a fictitious man’s rights again.
The Mother’s rights were terminated by Judge Raymond Cloutier in June of 2008. ALL State witnesses testified that the little boy wanted to live with his grandparents. His mother appealed due to errors made by Judge Cloutier, but her case was NOT overturned. Both grandchildren’s illegal adoptions were granted by Judge James Patten of the Hillsborough County Probate Court.
The grandparent’s filed for custody of both children several times. They were denied every time. The grandmother was denied a foster care license also, on the assumption she would not cooperate with DCYF. Would you cooperate after being slandered and victimized by a rogue government agency?
The Grandmother has in her possession, an e-mail from Maggie Bishop, stating a Home Study would be done with the Grandparent's for placement of their Grandson in their home.
The grandmother also has in her possession an e-mail from Lorraine Bartlett which states she and her husband were only afforded the Home Study to show them why they would not be a good placement for their grandson. It also state’s their grandson was in a pre-adoptive home in December of 2009 and his name was already changed, which is illegal.
Judge Bamberger sat on the bench for both daughter’s criminal charges, as well as sitting on the bench many times for their child custody cases. He definitely showed his bias against both of them, stating, “It’s too bad if your children were taken illegally. It’s too late. You didn’t file a De Novo appeal.” Wasn’t that up to their court appointed puppet’s, who both refused? Then why does it go against parent’s? Why are parent’s treated worse than convicted criminal’s?
Relative placement is not an option in Nashua, services are NOT provided to at-risk families before a child is placed in foster care, family and friend’s of the accused are NOT ever allowed into the courtroom, the accused is NOT allowed to speak in court AND court CD’s proving perjury by states witnesses are NEVER given to the accused, even after several motion’s are filed. There is NO Due Process in NH Family Court and NH DCYF are known as the Destroyer’s of Children, Youth and Families.
The “Secret” Court’s need to be opened and jury trial’s for all accused parent’s. That’s the only way to stop the abuse aimed at Children and Families!
unhappygrammy
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America
Please keep this going to others.
jane@abusefreedom.com
Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report
In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America
mosquitoreport@yahoo.com Mosquito Report Updated: March 3, 2010
Wise Old American Indian saying: Be like the mosquito small, fast, annoying, persistent, inflects pain, and swarms. Join us in building a swarm to bring back integrity and accountability to our justice system. Forward this report to everybody you know. Pick up your phone and pen and call your legislators. Let’s stop CHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT.
James Madison Quote President of the United States (1809–1817)
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).
What this means: Stop voting for attorneys entering legislative service. Our constitution clearly state a separation of power must be maintained with the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is professional misconduct for practicing judicial members to seek legislative office. Look at the campaign funding and you will find a large portion coming from other legal professionals, this is called self promotion. To stop corruption of our laws by profit seeking self interests of judicial members the public must enforce the separation of power laws and impeach or have judicial members resign from the judicial branch. (This is the root cause of corruption.)
Thomas Paine video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA (Tea parties/public outcry!)
Acknowledgements
The Mosquito report represents the struggle and achievements of thousands of parents and organizations that have paved the way for changes in our family law system across the United States. Sadly many parents have taken their own lives for having no place to turn for help. We want to express our deepest regret to their families and friends for their loss. In addition our country has turned its back on our armed service personnel and their special needs at a stressful time. We pray that this report will aid in preventing this from happening in the future. The Mosquito report has been assembled to provide the resources needed to provide hope and support and gain access to children.
We thank each and every parent and organization for their input to this public effort. We thank everyone for the fight and sacrifices they have made. We want to show our armed service personal that we hear them. We want to give them our highest praise for protecting our way of life and our children’s rights to access both parents. We want to thank all parents for exposing Judicial Misconduct and Professional Misconduct of attorneys profiting and preying on parents struggle to access their children. We want to thank every citizen for taking the time to help make legislative changes that parents need. We want to thank each and every person who will join us making calls and writing letters for legislative change, you are not alone with your struggle, and here is the information parents need. Let us protect the future of our children and the American Family and STOPCHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT. We seek to correct this wrong.
We want everybody to know how our government is allowing military personnel to return from deployment with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without providing treatment. They have served our country with honor and many are returning to face family law issues. Studies are showing a high rate of suicides with our returning military personnel we seek to correct this wrong. It is time to put our troop’s needs first over money and profit. No child benefits when a parent takes their own life.
Table of Contents (in progress)
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Mosquito Report Objective …………………………….………………….………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Separation of Power “The Problem” and how it relates to family law ……………….……………………………………………….…. 4
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting ….………………………………………………….……………………….. 5
Parental access to children (Your constitutional rights).…………….…..………………..…….…………………………………………..... 6
Economic Impact of joint custody ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test ……………………….………………………………………………………. 9
Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA)……………………………………….................................................................................. 12
Bradley Amendment……………………......………………..…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….. 12
Federal Racketeering Violations being covered up………………….……………………………………………………………………………… 13
Demand a Trial by Jury……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 13
Tape or Record All Hearings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
SAMPLE MOTION TO RECORD ALL HEARINGS (Modify to fit your case and if you use an attorney remove #1.)……… 14
Access to Justice……………………………….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Family Court Abuses of the Public …................................................................................................................................ 15
Know the “Enemy”……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 16
Document Racketeering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Sample Affidavit………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………........ 17
The Bigger Issue …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Domestic Violence and Escalation of your conflict………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Divorce information and Internet Links………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Supporting Reference Statutes Presumption of Shared Parenting…(Section break at page 21 number reset)………... 20
Parental rights a fundamental right………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Case law …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2?
Reference Studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Mosquito Report Objective
The objective of this report is to educate the public about peaceful alternatives to litigation and the traps set by profit seeking legal professionals. We seek to make fundamental legislative changes to our family law system across the United States. We seek both parties to control their anger towards the other parent and come to a reasonable settlement and preserve assets to benefit their children. The information in this report will help to avoid escalation of your issues by the legal profession. Remember the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Let us state this again the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Did you get the point they want your assets (money). We have assembled important information, case laws, and statutes and provided legal forms within this report. Our objective is to take the profit out of conflicts and aid the cost effective resolution of your dispute. We seek to preserve family assets for the benefit of your children. The Best Interest of your children is not to pay attorneys and experts seeking to profit from your conflict. We seek to expose the organized pattern of child abuse for profit with parental alienation tactics.
The negative economic (loss of money) impact to yourself and family assets will be great if you enter litigation. Avoid this at all costs your children need your assets not the legal profession. One of the largest causes for foreclosure and bankruptcy is divorce. You will be told by attorneys that you can sell everything you own to pay legal expenses to continue the conflict. Remember you have a choice to escalate the conflict or find a cost effective settlement path. Think of the needs of your children. How would your paying attorneys, court appointed experts, social workers benefit your children. We want to make this clear IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY BENEFIT YOUR CHILDREN. Science has proven absent neglect, abuse, abandonment children need both parents. Do not allow attorneys to twist normal conflicts into domestic violence or abuse. We seek to expose these attorneys and organizations extortion of the public, bring witnesses to meetings.
An attorney or organization might “suggest” the use of domestic violence as a tactic. Do not fall into this trap. They are creating a self servicing need for their services a “high conflict divorce or High conflict child custody battle” is the result. Abraham Lincoln Quoted: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President from 1861 until his assassination in April 1865) Attorneys will routinely not tell you that this tactic blocks mediation. Attorneys will not inform you that the use of this tactic will affect the earning potential of the accused for the rest of their lives. This tactic stops parties from talking creating a need for the additional services from the legal profession. This is a form of extortion under US Code. Make no mistake attorneys routinely plan to extort your assets with this tactic. The routine miss use of domestic violence funding by this tactic reduces resources needed for true victims of violence. Remember if you use this tactic for a divorce you are taking these resources away from these victims. Attorney’s business objective is to create a conflict from “custody battles”. Your focus must be to resolve your conflict with your opponent and not involve the children. Keep the children out of the conflict and provide the best possible solution you can that meets the needs of both parties. We seek to expose these organized extortion tactics to the United States Senate Judiciary Oversight committee for large scale investigation of abuses of the public interests. We seek to have Federal legislation past to Stop Child Abuse for Profit with a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Child abuse comes in many forms and what the legal profession is fighting to conceal is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This form of child abuse exposes the legal system to huge liabilities. The simple fact is the legal profession routinely uses this tactic to start a child custody battle between parents to serve the self interest of the legal profession for profit. Fact the legal system’s pattern to prey on the basic instincts of parents to protect their children is exploited for profit. The legal system is preying on the parent child relationship to serve their interest of profit. Remember this you and your children are the prey of the legal profession. Without your conflict they make no money or have a job. We seek to expose how the legal profession singles out and suppresses Parental Alienation Syndrome target parents with the use of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We seek to expose how attorneys routinely make it too expensive to fight this tactic. We seek to establish a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in the best interest of the children’s right to access both parents.
Stress and the child custody battle, the loss of a child is the most traumatic event any parent can experience. When judges routinely strip access of parents to children without due cause, it causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Judges and lawyers that knowingly and willfully do this to promote the self interest of the legal profession are directly responsible for countless suicides and violent acts. Human basic instincts kick in when parents are denied access to their children. On one hand some people become violent and misplace their anger toward the other parent or children these acts serves the interest of the legal system. The fact is the judge and the lawyers are responsible. On the other hand The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies has shown that parents and military service personnel are committing suicides at an increasing rate. These suicides do not serve the purpose of the court and create a huge liability to the courts for the neglect of the public interests. The best interest of the child is not served with the loss of a parent. We seek to require stress management counseling during family law matters and return of deployed troops.
Remember someone always gets hurt in a divorce or custody battle. Know if you are hurt or mad and seek revenge against your opponent do not involve the children. Do not drain financial resources to the legal profession that could be used to benefit yourself and your children. Think of the children and remember you once loved your opponent to the point of having a child in the first place. Any issues can be resolved without the involvement of litigation. Seek to preserve your assets from profit seeking legal professionals and protect your children’s rights to both parents. Know if you are fighting or fleeing (fight or flight). Calm down and take a breath. We seek to demand state provide mediation services outside the predatory practices of the legal profession.
Separation of power “ The Problem” and how it relates to family law
Stop voting for Attorneys to enter public office. Take a look at their campaign funding and you will find the legal profession self promote each other into office. The campaign funding trail demonstrates how this takes place it is available to the public (online) ask where in your state. Key committees on the state and federal level are controlled by judicial members (lawyers) effectively placing one class of Americans in control of our society. As of this date the Unite States Senate Judiciary oversight committee is made up of 19 members 13 are lawyers. Our form of government (federal and state levels) has three branches each service a control purpose. They are the executive branch (president’s and governor’s veto power), the legislative branch (Senate, House creates laws), judicial branch (enforcement of laws). Fact the Constitution of the United States clearly demands a separation of power. Many state’s Constitutions also demand a separation of power. The purpose was to provide a balance to the people. As we elect more members of the Judicial branch into the legislative branch the basic balance of our society becomes imbalanced. With no balances, corruption expands for lack of controls and oversight. It is common knowledge that attorneys do not prosecute each other for misconduct. Remember it is misconduct for an attorney not to report misconduct. The public has no resources to file proper successful grievances against attorneys and they know this. As misconduct rules become overlooked and the duty of the legal profession for self enforcement is neglected corruption expands. No self enforcement of judicial members truly exists to protect the public’s interests. The public must demand public oversight of the Attorney Grievance system with public workshops and clinics.
The above might sound like no big deal on the first glance but think about how it affects every aspect of our lives. We will focus on family laws. As an example in the state of Maryland we have a “gatekeeper” she is a delegate that practices family law and has become the “go to” person with family law matters in the general assembly. She also sits on the attorney grievance commission and has sat on listening events for the access to justice hearing events. She has presented Bills for the determination of child custody in Maryland. What she doesn’t want the public to know is that her co-counsel on a case has defended a child pornography defendant. This is a true conflict of interests first she makes her living from laws she is creating, second she associates with defenders of child pornography, third she accepted input to her Bill from the defender of child pornography, forth the Bill presented are not in the best interest of the public, third she is promoting the profit seeking interests of her profession over the public’s. During the access to justice hearings she listens to public outcry for mediation and to remove children from custody issues.
The impact of a single “gatekeeper” can block the interest of the public. As the example above shows a gatekeeper can also be anybody who “trashes” important information and prevents the decision maker from making a proper judgment on the issue. A simple way to test for gatekeepers is to send letters to your legislators, after a few days call the legislator to see if the letters have been received and presented to your legislator. If no letters have been received, you have a gatekeeper problem.
The enforcement of professional misconduct is the duty of the judicial branch. However it is a known fact that attorneys will not report misconduct on another attorney. The way to expose this is to simply bring two collaborating witnesses to an attorney’s office and inform the attorney of misconduct or a criminal act of another attorney. You must meet the threshold of “Probable Cause” with your information and documents. Remember it is the responsibility of the profession to enforce the rules of professional misconduct. Read your states rules of professional misconduct and document and expose it in the public’s interests. We are seeking public oversight of the Attorney Grievance process for the neglect of the professions responsibility to enforce misconduct.
Learn about free legal clinics, pro se projects and you law libraries in your state. Learn how to represent yourself in order to avoid litigation. Always interview attorneys for free do not pay a fee for the interview. The “right to counsel” is your right under the sixth and fourteenth amendment. If you cannot afford an attorney ask for accommodations and have one appointed. What you need to know is that you have the right to timely hearings (To be heard) so get to know the assignment office of the court. Attorneys will delay and schedule hearings so you have to pay additional fees. Keep your hearings within your needs not the needs of the attorney or courts profit seeking objective. Know the basic appeal period for your area.
If you enter litigation demand a trial by jury first thing and remember attorneys provide a service to you they work for you. Yes they have to make a living but do not sign retainers that allow them to charge for large blocks of time. Review the fee structure be carefully and negotiate items to make them reasonable. Most attorneys charge their hourly rate when they make copies; travel time, phone calls and research etc. document your dealings with them to protect yourself. Always provide a 1099 to them for tax purposes and get receipts for each payment you make. Read the rules of professional misconduct and expose any violations. A common tactic used to protect the legal profession is to discredit parents and suppress opposition with expensive litigation. Their objective is to get a list of assets quickly so they know how much they can strip with legal fees and associated experts. The pattern is to single out a parent and discredit them the main tool they use is your children. What I mean by this is the legal profession does not produce a product they provide a service. They provide a service that in many cases for something they have created. This is the very definition of extortion used to create a conflict for the increased fees for their services. We need to have more citizen based oversight of the judiciary branch and its members. Less than 1% of attorney grievances are prosecuted and a recent study shows that if a citizen files a law suit against a state or the government most are not even heard a violation of the victims civil rights.
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting
The most important issue is the Children. The children have a fundamental right to see both parents. The court uses the term “in the best interest of the children” as a smoke screen to promote parental alienation tactics to strip parents access to children. Protect your children from the legal system. Parental alienation will damage the children for the rest of their lives. We need every parent to keep the children out of their fight. What is said and what is practiced by the legal system are two separate things. It is becoming routine for facts about normal parental relationships to be twisted into domestic violence, spousal abuse, and child abuse these false accusations must be documented. Early statistics are showing that 80% of accusations are unfounded, or worse, planned and executed. The country of India has taken measures to remove domestic violence due to the fact of high level of abuses. “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President) When a false accusation plan is executed the sole purpose is to circumvent due process of law and gain control of custody of children and assets. This creates an unfair advantage, a violation of Rules of professional misconduct by the party that executed the plan. Courts will routinely overlook this misconduct due to the “political nature” of these cases. What happens in these cases is a parent is stripped of their access to their children (Parental Alienation Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Please seek to modify the determination of child custody and support a presumption of shared parenting in your state. Let’s keep our children away from the lawyers and legal system. Stop Child Abuse for Profit. President Abraham Lincoln warned of this in his quote:
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President)
Reasons for Support a Presumption of Shared Parenting
1. A custody decision should focus upon the U.S. constitutional custody rights and responsibilities of parents first and the unfitness of parents afterwards. The "Best interests of children" are typically served by encouraging and facilitating maximum involvement among both parents and children. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment the children deserve access to both parents.
2. Since courts currently award joint custody as it relates to the decision-making abilities of parents, the courts are rarely presented with a true and accurate picture due the contentiousness of divorces, the adversarial climate of family courts, and their historically biased custody rulings favoring a single parent (mothers) in 88% of cases.
3. Current law requires trial courts to make findings on requests for joint custody. Instead there should be a statutory presumption of joint physical custody. Trial courts should make findings on reasons for not awarding joint physical custody.
4. Where trial courts must determine custody under existing child custody factors, mothers receive sole physical custody in the overwhelming majority of cases. Fathers are required to separate motion separately for visitation (parenting time) in order to exercise their parental responsibilities.
5. Joint custody awards should not necessarily reflect the voluntary distribution of parental involvement in an intact household prior to divorce. The environment of a two-household, non-intact family will place new demands upon parents and children alike.
6. A joint physical custody award will practically guarantee a greater involvement of both parents in the lives and activities of their children. Typical visitation (parenting time) awards hamper the involvement of both parents in their child's development post divorce. Custody awards to unmarried mothers seldom involve adequate child visitation of fathers.
7. The definition of an unfit parent is easily defined by the U.S. constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This definition is limited to physical, psychological, or child abuse. If parental unfitness were to be defined by current Maryland domestic violence statutes, it would be so broad that few parents (married or otherwise) would be deemed fit to parent.
8. There are indeed times when joint physical/legal custody is not in the best interest of the children, but these times are the exceptions and involve actual physical, psychological, or child abuse.
9. These changes will dramatically reduce the documented bias of custody awards by state trial courts. Further it will reduce litigation and its associated costs. Further it will preserve the marital assets for the minor children.
10. These changes will encourage both parents to remain accessible to their children. Court discretion can be utilized to determine specific physical custody durations based upon circumstances. Presumption of 50/50 for physical custody.
11. MARYLAND CASE LAW: In Maryland there is case law already established Kimberly Boswell v. Robert G. Boswell (Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 721 A.2d 662(1998)) quoted from court clarifying the best interest standard:(b) in making a determination of legal and physical custody under this subtitle, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interest of the child. Reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interest of the child. The Maryland Court of Appeals overruled this decision and stated as part of their decision, “We seek to clarify that only one standard is used in determining whether to restrict parental visitation in the presence of non-marital partners, bests interests of the child, but we also want to emphasize that when a court is engaging in a best interests analysis, reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child.” (352 Md. 204, at 214.) This language was important as it was the first time a Maryland state court has mentioned any presumption towards both parents, at least in any published opinion.
Some have claimed that Boswell was really a case about gay rights, and only nominally discussed this issue of a presumption towards maximum reasonable exposure. For a time, it seemed that the courts were also treating Boswell in such a manner. However, we have recently found a 2007 Court of Special Appeals case applying Boswell. In Gordon v. Gordon (174 Md.App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (Md.App., 2007).), the Court of Special Appeals took up the case of a father who was attempting to modify a custody order to have the time split 50-50. While the court ruled that 50-50 was not the meaning of maximum reasonable exposure, the court did report favorably on the presumption first articulated is Boswell and did not rule that this presumption was just dicta. Furthermore, the court noted that the custody arrangement currently in place for the Gordons afforded Mr. Gordon every other weekend from Thursday night through Monday morning and Wednesday morning through Thursday morning on alternate weeks. It should not go without noting that the one published case citing Boswell’s presumption language had a custody arrangement that was much more equitable than most.
Parental Access to Children
Listed below is a section of case law that has been established in support of constitutional right to have access to your children. These cases have established parental rights from a constitutional stand point. However be aware that state appointed judges will violate your rights to add expense to your conflict and meet their funding requirements. The family court system is basically a divorce industry that preys on one parent’s anger for profit. The objective of the court is to strip one parent’s access to their children. Remember this fact a system has been developed to exploit your parental instincts and take your money.
Do not fall into the trap of allowing legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Both parties have these instincts. The best way for both parties to win is to allow equal access to children when possible. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment this should be in the form of joint physical and legal custody. It has been proven that parents that pay child support that have access continue to pay. Use mediators to establish fair child support payments for both parents using you state’s child support guidelines. Again do not allow legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Fight for the presumption of shared parenting and seek the best interest of your children is to have access to both parents and preserve family assets.
We seek to expose how the legal profession uses parental access to promote the need for their services. When a judge demonstrates their prejudice and strips a parent of access with no cause, it is judicial misconduct. When a judge abuses their discretion and strips a parent of access to their children, it is judicial misconduct. What these court actions do is promote the need for legal services. The judges are aiding attorneys to collect fees for their services. What needs to be proven is simply that two or more judges or attorneys are involved and you have a racketeering charge which is a US Code violation. To establish this show how the courts striped you of your access to your children without any proof being presented. Demonstrate how you informed your attorney. Lastly demonstrate how the courts routinely have ex parti communications with attorneys without your presence.
The simple fact is judges will abuse their discretion and demonstrate prejudice to obtain their objectives. Their first objective is to extract the maximum assets from the at risk family. The second objective is to obtain child support enforcement funding. This latter objective requires that one party is subjected to child support. This is accomplished by creating a conflict over your children. The conflict as outlined earlier creates a need for legal services. What happens is one parent is given control of the assets and the sense that they are in control. The fact is the courts have control and are aiding lawyers to extort funds from your family. The other parent is at a disadvantage because they need access to assets to obtain adequate legal representation. This tactic is the routine pattern. The system will isolate and suppress one parent that does not have the means to obtain legal representation. Do not make this mistake this is vengeful and in no way benefits your children. Remember this simple fact you loved the person to the point of having a child with them they deserve to see the child. The support they can provide to you and aid the child cannot be measured in dollars. Do not make this mistake. Attorneys and judges will tell you we can get this or that but in the end it is your children that have lost. Your children need the support of both loving parents willing to protect them from the legal system.
Economic Impact of joint custody
Many Studies have been conducted on the positive economic benefits to the child of joint custody and we ask you to research this subject on the World Wide Web and not depend on individuals who make their living from Family law. We ask that you review the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Fatherhood Initiative programs and the various foundations that are now funding and promoting the strong positive impact of fathers in the best interest of the children of America. We need to stress that both parents are needed to help the children develop. These programs express the need to help low income families and father to obtain the training they need to be the best parents they can be. We have attached two reprinted articles that outline the truth about economic impact of custody. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL article included below “The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” outlines percentages of mothers and fathers payments of child support. The Washington Times article “Child-support-law amendment comes to attention of Hill” outlines how custody becomes an incentive to pay child support. This article also shows the negative economic impact of driving child support payers into the underground economy. Reports of statistics of parents with joint custody pay their child support obligations at a much higher rate providing a reduction in Child-support enforcement.
Keep in mind that both parents should provide for the children. However the legal system destroys the earning potential with the systematic abuse of domestic violence laws. This abuse of domestic violence laws is called “abuse excuse” this is a legal trap to create high conflict child custody and divorce cases. The minute one party accuses the other party the long term earning potentials will be damages to the accused party. In no way can this be “in the best interest of the children”. Long term income damage will have long term impact on your family. Do not allow abused person programs or attorneys to suggest the use of the “abuse excuse” tactic for a divorce absent abuse, neglect and abandonment. Keep your divorce simple and low conflict to save money for your children. Keep your hurt and anger under control to keep the assets in the family.
To expand on the negative economic impact you just need to look deeply at how the justice system of the United States has removed resource from our productive citizens. The negative economic impact to the dysfunctional family with child custody and divorce conflicts is common knowledge. Everybody has heard the stories how the attorneys strip all the assets including housing from parents. Remember your attorney has NO financial obligation to you. They just want to make profit from your conflict. We call any service industry that doesn’t produce anything a parasitic industry. Any service industry that creates a demand for their services is in violation of federal racketeering laws defined under US. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 96§ 1961. Do not allow attorneys off the record suggestions to increase their fees. Document their off record suggestions with videos, collaborating witnesses or detailed letters. As these parasitic industries grow our society will not be able to support their greed.
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS
The most important thing to know is the timeframe for filing court documents. The court will hold to these technical timeframes to meet the needs of the courts business. KNOW THE TIMEFRAMES REQUIRED BY COURT RULES. The bad news is the court will allow lawyer’s to violate time frames with Sua Sponte motions to meet the needs of the courts business. These motions are used to protect the interest of the courts over the interest of the public. The courts have the power to conceal information with sealed records as a tactic to protect the business of the courts. So remember just because you filed something in a timely manner does not mean the court will accept it or act on it they might even seal it. You need to get you side on court record in a timely manner is the bottom line. What the courts do with the information is another issue. Objecting to information entered into record is very important and you attorney must do this in a timely manner. Expose the candor and lies quickly.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can be triggered by the loss of access to your children. Please learn about this disorder at http://www.ptsdalliance.org. This can be a life threatening disorder and can affect people in various ways.
The legal system has developed a system that preys on your basic parenting instincts. What they do is exploit a parent’s anger toward the other parent. This takes the form of a custody battle over the children. No consideration is given to the rights of the children to see both parents. Absent abuse, neglect and abandonment every child deserves both parents. As a parent we have all heard the stories of parents going “nuts” and killing their children and families. These are the stories that the media love to report on and are relatively very few. These cases serve the interest of the court to create a bias. These violent cases with media exposure create the fear and ultimately the bias the courts exploit for profit. This is one form of the “fight” we ask that if you intend to fight expose the injustice of the predatory practices of the judicial system. Hold the judges and lawyers accountable for their criminal actions by documenting them and filing proper criminal charges.
It is normal to get angry or depressed when you are removed from your children. Parental Alienation is one of the most traumatic experiences any person can endure. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects many parents at this point. As parents become depressed several things can happen. First when good parents are backed up against a wall some fight back with force. There is a book called “Kill the Attorneys” and a sad fact is many people are turning their anger towards biased judges. This has become a problem for this movement because judges are being targeted and killed. What seems to be happening is people are starting to take the time to plan military style assaults with diversions and escape routes to execute their violent plans. These tactics take time to plan and this level of anger is a direct result of parents having no place to turn for justice. Depressed parents are targeting and holding judges and attorneys accountable with violent actions. Sadly these violent acts service the interest of the courts with negative media coverage. These violent acts are due to legal professionals ignoring civil rights of parents in the first place.
As harsh legislation against parent’s rights is starting to be passed into law many parents are holding attorneys and judges accountable. The attorneys and judges motive is simple protect their profit making industry and cover up their wrong doing. These sworn legal professionals strip families of resources and place financial burdens on parents to meet federal funding requirements. We need to get to the root of the problem and use the pen and change legislation to take the profit out of these predatory practices. The issue is committees of the legislative bodies of our government are controlled by attorneys this is a true conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is not enforced to protect the interest of the public but neglected by the judicial branch. Judicial neglect to enforce conflict of interest laws to preserve the self interest of profit. Remember they are exploiting your parent child relationship for their profit.
The Second PTSD issue that doesn’t get the media’s attention is how many parents use “flight” to escape these legal attacks for profit. The CDC studies show how parents are committing suicide at an alarming rate. The studies show men have a higher success rate at committing suicide. These suicides are a direct result of predatory practices and place a negative economic impact on our society. The justice system has built in controls to protect them from being accused. These controls take the form of publicly funded social programs or crisis centers. Depression is a very powerful emotion and victims sometimes seek help from these programs. The truth is parents seeking help from social programs for their depression are labeled. They later find the very organization they went for help from are used against them in a court of law. This sometimes triggers a negative response and the person now feels they have no place to turn and they commit suicide. The legal system always terms their victims as unstable or mentally unstable for the media. These simple examples outline how when parents have no place to turn for justice their emotions kick in and becomes basic instincts of fight or flight. The trigger the legal profession doesn’t what you to know about is the following section. Parental alienation is currently being suppressed in legislation by legal professionals and abused person funded organizations.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test
Avoid this behavior the long term damage to your children cannot be repaired. The basic trust between child and parents should remain intact for both parents. It is the child’s right to have this trust of both parents. Use the Frye test information below to get your state to establish case law for PAS. Stop this form of child abuse.
What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? This is the definition of PAS as described by R.A. Gardner: http://www.paskids.com/ "The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." (Excerpted from: Gardner, R.A. (1998) The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.)
Be aware that the legal profession is trying to discredit this syndrome so they can continue to profit from your children. The best interest of your children is to have access to both parents. The courts and associated experts and social workers are defending their interests of profiting from your conflict. Their past actions expose them to huge liabilities for this form of child abuse. Make no mistake the judicial system will retaliate to defend against this liability. Get involved and use the Frye test to defeat the legal profession to protect your children and future children. In Maryland our Maryland law has only marginally addressed the issue in the case of Barton v. Hirshberg 137 Md.App. 1, 767 A.2d 874 Md.App., 2001. Courts outside of Maryland have reviewed the issue in greater detail and case law established listed below. The following websites will provide some insight to this complex issue:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2117396/the_gregory_mantell_show_parental_alienation_part_2/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nfdc_the-gregory-mantell-show-parental-a_shortfilms
http://www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/
http://www.paawareness.org/
http://www.stopparentalalienation.org/
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome.htm
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 2)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome2.htm
www.stopparentalalienation.org
www.breakthroughparentingservices.org
Expert:
Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., Executive Director Telephone: (310) 823-7846
Stop Parental Alienation of Children Fax: (310) 388-0700
Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. Email: jaynemajor@gmail.com
12405 Venice Boulevard, #172, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (Map)
Court Frye test Rulings Relevant to Parental Alienation for the UNITED STATES (2 States)
The Frye Test is the standard by which a court can determine whether a scientific contribution has gained enough general acceptances in the scientific community to be admissible in a court of law. The Frye Test criteria for admissibility were applied to The Parental Alienation Syndrome in the following cases:
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]
Court Rulings relevant to Parental Alienation (22 States)
Alabama
· Berry v. Berry, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, AL, Case No. DR-96-761.01. Jan 06, 2001
Alaska
· Pearson v. Pearson, Sup Ct. of AK., No. S-8973, No. 5297, 5 P.3d 239; 2000 Alas. Lexis 69. July 7, 2000.
Arkansas
· Chambers v. Chambers, Ct of App of AR, Div 2; 2000 Ark App. LEXIS 476, June 21, 2000.
California
· Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.
· John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996.
· Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671.
Colorado
· Oosterhaus v. Short, District Court, County of Boulder (CO), Case No. 85DR1737-Div III.
Connecticut
· Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 (Conn. Super.,Jul 16, 1996).
· Metza v. Metza, Sup. Court of Connecticut, Jud. Dist. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport,
1998 Conn. Super. Lexis 2727 (1998).
Florida
· Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
· Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778; 1998 Fla. App. Case No. 96-03534.
· Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
· Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Fl.,Case no. CD98-1285-FC. Mar 15, 2000.
o An exceptionally strong family court decision in which five experts testified to the diagnosis of PAS.
· Loten v. Ryan, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL., Case No. CD 93-6567 FA. Dec 11,2000.
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· McDonald v. McDonald, 9th Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, FL. Case No. D-R90-11079, Feb 20, 1001.
· Blackshear v. Blackshear, Hillsborough County, FL 13th Jud. Circuit: 95-08436.
Illinois
· In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
· In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
·
YouTube - Videos from this email
jane@abusefreedom.com
Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report
In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America
mosquitoreport@yahoo.com Mosquito Report Updated: March 3, 2010
Wise Old American Indian saying: Be like the mosquito small, fast, annoying, persistent, inflects pain, and swarms. Join us in building a swarm to bring back integrity and accountability to our justice system. Forward this report to everybody you know. Pick up your phone and pen and call your legislators. Let’s stop CHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT.
James Madison Quote President of the United States (1809–1817)
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).
What this means: Stop voting for attorneys entering legislative service. Our constitution clearly state a separation of power must be maintained with the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is professional misconduct for practicing judicial members to seek legislative office. Look at the campaign funding and you will find a large portion coming from other legal professionals, this is called self promotion. To stop corruption of our laws by profit seeking self interests of judicial members the public must enforce the separation of power laws and impeach or have judicial members resign from the judicial branch. (This is the root cause of corruption.)
Thomas Paine video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA (Tea parties/public outcry!)
Acknowledgements
The Mosquito report represents the struggle and achievements of thousands of parents and organizations that have paved the way for changes in our family law system across the United States. Sadly many parents have taken their own lives for having no place to turn for help. We want to express our deepest regret to their families and friends for their loss. In addition our country has turned its back on our armed service personnel and their special needs at a stressful time. We pray that this report will aid in preventing this from happening in the future. The Mosquito report has been assembled to provide the resources needed to provide hope and support and gain access to children.
We thank each and every parent and organization for their input to this public effort. We thank everyone for the fight and sacrifices they have made. We want to show our armed service personal that we hear them. We want to give them our highest praise for protecting our way of life and our children’s rights to access both parents. We want to thank all parents for exposing Judicial Misconduct and Professional Misconduct of attorneys profiting and preying on parents struggle to access their children. We want to thank every citizen for taking the time to help make legislative changes that parents need. We want to thank each and every person who will join us making calls and writing letters for legislative change, you are not alone with your struggle, and here is the information parents need. Let us protect the future of our children and the American Family and STOPCHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT. We seek to correct this wrong.
We want everybody to know how our government is allowing military personnel to return from deployment with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without providing treatment. They have served our country with honor and many are returning to face family law issues. Studies are showing a high rate of suicides with our returning military personnel we seek to correct this wrong. It is time to put our troop’s needs first over money and profit. No child benefits when a parent takes their own life.
Table of Contents (in progress)
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Mosquito Report Objective …………………………….………………….………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Separation of Power “The Problem” and how it relates to family law ……………….……………………………………………….…. 4
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting ….………………………………………………….……………………….. 5
Parental access to children (Your constitutional rights).…………….…..………………..…….…………………………………………..... 6
Economic Impact of joint custody ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test ……………………….………………………………………………………. 9
Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA)……………………………………….................................................................................. 12
Bradley Amendment……………………......………………..…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….. 12
Federal Racketeering Violations being covered up………………….……………………………………………………………………………… 13
Demand a Trial by Jury……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 13
Tape or Record All Hearings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
SAMPLE MOTION TO RECORD ALL HEARINGS (Modify to fit your case and if you use an attorney remove #1.)……… 14
Access to Justice……………………………….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Family Court Abuses of the Public …................................................................................................................................ 15
Know the “Enemy”……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 16
Document Racketeering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Sample Affidavit………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………........ 17
The Bigger Issue …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Domestic Violence and Escalation of your conflict………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Divorce information and Internet Links………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Supporting Reference Statutes Presumption of Shared Parenting…(Section break at page 21 number reset)………... 20
Parental rights a fundamental right………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Case law …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2?
Reference Studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Mosquito Report Objective
The objective of this report is to educate the public about peaceful alternatives to litigation and the traps set by profit seeking legal professionals. We seek to make fundamental legislative changes to our family law system across the United States. We seek both parties to control their anger towards the other parent and come to a reasonable settlement and preserve assets to benefit their children. The information in this report will help to avoid escalation of your issues by the legal profession. Remember the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Let us state this again the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Did you get the point they want your assets (money). We have assembled important information, case laws, and statutes and provided legal forms within this report. Our objective is to take the profit out of conflicts and aid the cost effective resolution of your dispute. We seek to preserve family assets for the benefit of your children. The Best Interest of your children is not to pay attorneys and experts seeking to profit from your conflict. We seek to expose the organized pattern of child abuse for profit with parental alienation tactics.
The negative economic (loss of money) impact to yourself and family assets will be great if you enter litigation. Avoid this at all costs your children need your assets not the legal profession. One of the largest causes for foreclosure and bankruptcy is divorce. You will be told by attorneys that you can sell everything you own to pay legal expenses to continue the conflict. Remember you have a choice to escalate the conflict or find a cost effective settlement path. Think of the needs of your children. How would your paying attorneys, court appointed experts, social workers benefit your children. We want to make this clear IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY BENEFIT YOUR CHILDREN. Science has proven absent neglect, abuse, abandonment children need both parents. Do not allow attorneys to twist normal conflicts into domestic violence or abuse. We seek to expose these attorneys and organizations extortion of the public, bring witnesses to meetings.
An attorney or organization might “suggest” the use of domestic violence as a tactic. Do not fall into this trap. They are creating a self servicing need for their services a “high conflict divorce or High conflict child custody battle” is the result. Abraham Lincoln Quoted: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President from 1861 until his assassination in April 1865) Attorneys will routinely not tell you that this tactic blocks mediation. Attorneys will not inform you that the use of this tactic will affect the earning potential of the accused for the rest of their lives. This tactic stops parties from talking creating a need for the additional services from the legal profession. This is a form of extortion under US Code. Make no mistake attorneys routinely plan to extort your assets with this tactic. The routine miss use of domestic violence funding by this tactic reduces resources needed for true victims of violence. Remember if you use this tactic for a divorce you are taking these resources away from these victims. Attorney’s business objective is to create a conflict from “custody battles”. Your focus must be to resolve your conflict with your opponent and not involve the children. Keep the children out of the conflict and provide the best possible solution you can that meets the needs of both parties. We seek to expose these organized extortion tactics to the United States Senate Judiciary Oversight committee for large scale investigation of abuses of the public interests. We seek to have Federal legislation past to Stop Child Abuse for Profit with a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Child abuse comes in many forms and what the legal profession is fighting to conceal is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This form of child abuse exposes the legal system to huge liabilities. The simple fact is the legal profession routinely uses this tactic to start a child custody battle between parents to serve the self interest of the legal profession for profit. Fact the legal system’s pattern to prey on the basic instincts of parents to protect their children is exploited for profit. The legal system is preying on the parent child relationship to serve their interest of profit. Remember this you and your children are the prey of the legal profession. Without your conflict they make no money or have a job. We seek to expose how the legal profession singles out and suppresses Parental Alienation Syndrome target parents with the use of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We seek to expose how attorneys routinely make it too expensive to fight this tactic. We seek to establish a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in the best interest of the children’s right to access both parents.
Stress and the child custody battle, the loss of a child is the most traumatic event any parent can experience. When judges routinely strip access of parents to children without due cause, it causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Judges and lawyers that knowingly and willfully do this to promote the self interest of the legal profession are directly responsible for countless suicides and violent acts. Human basic instincts kick in when parents are denied access to their children. On one hand some people become violent and misplace their anger toward the other parent or children these acts serves the interest of the legal system. The fact is the judge and the lawyers are responsible. On the other hand The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies has shown that parents and military service personnel are committing suicides at an increasing rate. These suicides do not serve the purpose of the court and create a huge liability to the courts for the neglect of the public interests. The best interest of the child is not served with the loss of a parent. We seek to require stress management counseling during family law matters and return of deployed troops.
Remember someone always gets hurt in a divorce or custody battle. Know if you are hurt or mad and seek revenge against your opponent do not involve the children. Do not drain financial resources to the legal profession that could be used to benefit yourself and your children. Think of the children and remember you once loved your opponent to the point of having a child in the first place. Any issues can be resolved without the involvement of litigation. Seek to preserve your assets from profit seeking legal professionals and protect your children’s rights to both parents. Know if you are fighting or fleeing (fight or flight). Calm down and take a breath. We seek to demand state provide mediation services outside the predatory practices of the legal profession.
Separation of power “ The Problem” and how it relates to family law
Stop voting for Attorneys to enter public office. Take a look at their campaign funding and you will find the legal profession self promote each other into office. The campaign funding trail demonstrates how this takes place it is available to the public (online) ask where in your state. Key committees on the state and federal level are controlled by judicial members (lawyers) effectively placing one class of Americans in control of our society. As of this date the Unite States Senate Judiciary oversight committee is made up of 19 members 13 are lawyers. Our form of government (federal and state levels) has three branches each service a control purpose. They are the executive branch (president’s and governor’s veto power), the legislative branch (Senate, House creates laws), judicial branch (enforcement of laws). Fact the Constitution of the United States clearly demands a separation of power. Many state’s Constitutions also demand a separation of power. The purpose was to provide a balance to the people. As we elect more members of the Judicial branch into the legislative branch the basic balance of our society becomes imbalanced. With no balances, corruption expands for lack of controls and oversight. It is common knowledge that attorneys do not prosecute each other for misconduct. Remember it is misconduct for an attorney not to report misconduct. The public has no resources to file proper successful grievances against attorneys and they know this. As misconduct rules become overlooked and the duty of the legal profession for self enforcement is neglected corruption expands. No self enforcement of judicial members truly exists to protect the public’s interests. The public must demand public oversight of the Attorney Grievance system with public workshops and clinics.
The above might sound like no big deal on the first glance but think about how it affects every aspect of our lives. We will focus on family laws. As an example in the state of Maryland we have a “gatekeeper” she is a delegate that practices family law and has become the “go to” person with family law matters in the general assembly. She also sits on the attorney grievance commission and has sat on listening events for the access to justice hearing events. She has presented Bills for the determination of child custody in Maryland. What she doesn’t want the public to know is that her co-counsel on a case has defended a child pornography defendant. This is a true conflict of interests first she makes her living from laws she is creating, second she associates with defenders of child pornography, third she accepted input to her Bill from the defender of child pornography, forth the Bill presented are not in the best interest of the public, third she is promoting the profit seeking interests of her profession over the public’s. During the access to justice hearings she listens to public outcry for mediation and to remove children from custody issues.
The impact of a single “gatekeeper” can block the interest of the public. As the example above shows a gatekeeper can also be anybody who “trashes” important information and prevents the decision maker from making a proper judgment on the issue. A simple way to test for gatekeepers is to send letters to your legislators, after a few days call the legislator to see if the letters have been received and presented to your legislator. If no letters have been received, you have a gatekeeper problem.
The enforcement of professional misconduct is the duty of the judicial branch. However it is a known fact that attorneys will not report misconduct on another attorney. The way to expose this is to simply bring two collaborating witnesses to an attorney’s office and inform the attorney of misconduct or a criminal act of another attorney. You must meet the threshold of “Probable Cause” with your information and documents. Remember it is the responsibility of the profession to enforce the rules of professional misconduct. Read your states rules of professional misconduct and document and expose it in the public’s interests. We are seeking public oversight of the Attorney Grievance process for the neglect of the professions responsibility to enforce misconduct.
Learn about free legal clinics, pro se projects and you law libraries in your state. Learn how to represent yourself in order to avoid litigation. Always interview attorneys for free do not pay a fee for the interview. The “right to counsel” is your right under the sixth and fourteenth amendment. If you cannot afford an attorney ask for accommodations and have one appointed. What you need to know is that you have the right to timely hearings (To be heard) so get to know the assignment office of the court. Attorneys will delay and schedule hearings so you have to pay additional fees. Keep your hearings within your needs not the needs of the attorney or courts profit seeking objective. Know the basic appeal period for your area.
If you enter litigation demand a trial by jury first thing and remember attorneys provide a service to you they work for you. Yes they have to make a living but do not sign retainers that allow them to charge for large blocks of time. Review the fee structure be carefully and negotiate items to make them reasonable. Most attorneys charge their hourly rate when they make copies; travel time, phone calls and research etc. document your dealings with them to protect yourself. Always provide a 1099 to them for tax purposes and get receipts for each payment you make. Read the rules of professional misconduct and expose any violations. A common tactic used to protect the legal profession is to discredit parents and suppress opposition with expensive litigation. Their objective is to get a list of assets quickly so they know how much they can strip with legal fees and associated experts. The pattern is to single out a parent and discredit them the main tool they use is your children. What I mean by this is the legal profession does not produce a product they provide a service. They provide a service that in many cases for something they have created. This is the very definition of extortion used to create a conflict for the increased fees for their services. We need to have more citizen based oversight of the judiciary branch and its members. Less than 1% of attorney grievances are prosecuted and a recent study shows that if a citizen files a law suit against a state or the government most are not even heard a violation of the victims civil rights.
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting
The most important issue is the Children. The children have a fundamental right to see both parents. The court uses the term “in the best interest of the children” as a smoke screen to promote parental alienation tactics to strip parents access to children. Protect your children from the legal system. Parental alienation will damage the children for the rest of their lives. We need every parent to keep the children out of their fight. What is said and what is practiced by the legal system are two separate things. It is becoming routine for facts about normal parental relationships to be twisted into domestic violence, spousal abuse, and child abuse these false accusations must be documented. Early statistics are showing that 80% of accusations are unfounded, or worse, planned and executed. The country of India has taken measures to remove domestic violence due to the fact of high level of abuses. “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President) When a false accusation plan is executed the sole purpose is to circumvent due process of law and gain control of custody of children and assets. This creates an unfair advantage, a violation of Rules of professional misconduct by the party that executed the plan. Courts will routinely overlook this misconduct due to the “political nature” of these cases. What happens in these cases is a parent is stripped of their access to their children (Parental Alienation Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Please seek to modify the determination of child custody and support a presumption of shared parenting in your state. Let’s keep our children away from the lawyers and legal system. Stop Child Abuse for Profit. President Abraham Lincoln warned of this in his quote:
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President)
Reasons for Support a Presumption of Shared Parenting
1. A custody decision should focus upon the U.S. constitutional custody rights and responsibilities of parents first and the unfitness of parents afterwards. The "Best interests of children" are typically served by encouraging and facilitating maximum involvement among both parents and children. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment the children deserve access to both parents.
2. Since courts currently award joint custody as it relates to the decision-making abilities of parents, the courts are rarely presented with a true and accurate picture due the contentiousness of divorces, the adversarial climate of family courts, and their historically biased custody rulings favoring a single parent (mothers) in 88% of cases.
3. Current law requires trial courts to make findings on requests for joint custody. Instead there should be a statutory presumption of joint physical custody. Trial courts should make findings on reasons for not awarding joint physical custody.
4. Where trial courts must determine custody under existing child custody factors, mothers receive sole physical custody in the overwhelming majority of cases. Fathers are required to separate motion separately for visitation (parenting time) in order to exercise their parental responsibilities.
5. Joint custody awards should not necessarily reflect the voluntary distribution of parental involvement in an intact household prior to divorce. The environment of a two-household, non-intact family will place new demands upon parents and children alike.
6. A joint physical custody award will practically guarantee a greater involvement of both parents in the lives and activities of their children. Typical visitation (parenting time) awards hamper the involvement of both parents in their child's development post divorce. Custody awards to unmarried mothers seldom involve adequate child visitation of fathers.
7. The definition of an unfit parent is easily defined by the U.S. constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This definition is limited to physical, psychological, or child abuse. If parental unfitness were to be defined by current Maryland domestic violence statutes, it would be so broad that few parents (married or otherwise) would be deemed fit to parent.
8. There are indeed times when joint physical/legal custody is not in the best interest of the children, but these times are the exceptions and involve actual physical, psychological, or child abuse.
9. These changes will dramatically reduce the documented bias of custody awards by state trial courts. Further it will reduce litigation and its associated costs. Further it will preserve the marital assets for the minor children.
10. These changes will encourage both parents to remain accessible to their children. Court discretion can be utilized to determine specific physical custody durations based upon circumstances. Presumption of 50/50 for physical custody.
11. MARYLAND CASE LAW: In Maryland there is case law already established Kimberly Boswell v. Robert G. Boswell (Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 721 A.2d 662(1998)) quoted from court clarifying the best interest standard:(b) in making a determination of legal and physical custody under this subtitle, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interest of the child. Reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interest of the child. The Maryland Court of Appeals overruled this decision and stated as part of their decision, “We seek to clarify that only one standard is used in determining whether to restrict parental visitation in the presence of non-marital partners, bests interests of the child, but we also want to emphasize that when a court is engaging in a best interests analysis, reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child.” (352 Md. 204, at 214.) This language was important as it was the first time a Maryland state court has mentioned any presumption towards both parents, at least in any published opinion.
Some have claimed that Boswell was really a case about gay rights, and only nominally discussed this issue of a presumption towards maximum reasonable exposure. For a time, it seemed that the courts were also treating Boswell in such a manner. However, we have recently found a 2007 Court of Special Appeals case applying Boswell. In Gordon v. Gordon (174 Md.App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (Md.App., 2007).), the Court of Special Appeals took up the case of a father who was attempting to modify a custody order to have the time split 50-50. While the court ruled that 50-50 was not the meaning of maximum reasonable exposure, the court did report favorably on the presumption first articulated is Boswell and did not rule that this presumption was just dicta. Furthermore, the court noted that the custody arrangement currently in place for the Gordons afforded Mr. Gordon every other weekend from Thursday night through Monday morning and Wednesday morning through Thursday morning on alternate weeks. It should not go without noting that the one published case citing Boswell’s presumption language had a custody arrangement that was much more equitable than most.
Parental Access to Children
Listed below is a section of case law that has been established in support of constitutional right to have access to your children. These cases have established parental rights from a constitutional stand point. However be aware that state appointed judges will violate your rights to add expense to your conflict and meet their funding requirements. The family court system is basically a divorce industry that preys on one parent’s anger for profit. The objective of the court is to strip one parent’s access to their children. Remember this fact a system has been developed to exploit your parental instincts and take your money.
Do not fall into the trap of allowing legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Both parties have these instincts. The best way for both parties to win is to allow equal access to children when possible. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment this should be in the form of joint physical and legal custody. It has been proven that parents that pay child support that have access continue to pay. Use mediators to establish fair child support payments for both parents using you state’s child support guidelines. Again do not allow legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Fight for the presumption of shared parenting and seek the best interest of your children is to have access to both parents and preserve family assets.
We seek to expose how the legal profession uses parental access to promote the need for their services. When a judge demonstrates their prejudice and strips a parent of access with no cause, it is judicial misconduct. When a judge abuses their discretion and strips a parent of access to their children, it is judicial misconduct. What these court actions do is promote the need for legal services. The judges are aiding attorneys to collect fees for their services. What needs to be proven is simply that two or more judges or attorneys are involved and you have a racketeering charge which is a US Code violation. To establish this show how the courts striped you of your access to your children without any proof being presented. Demonstrate how you informed your attorney. Lastly demonstrate how the courts routinely have ex parti communications with attorneys without your presence.
The simple fact is judges will abuse their discretion and demonstrate prejudice to obtain their objectives. Their first objective is to extract the maximum assets from the at risk family. The second objective is to obtain child support enforcement funding. This latter objective requires that one party is subjected to child support. This is accomplished by creating a conflict over your children. The conflict as outlined earlier creates a need for legal services. What happens is one parent is given control of the assets and the sense that they are in control. The fact is the courts have control and are aiding lawyers to extort funds from your family. The other parent is at a disadvantage because they need access to assets to obtain adequate legal representation. This tactic is the routine pattern. The system will isolate and suppress one parent that does not have the means to obtain legal representation. Do not make this mistake this is vengeful and in no way benefits your children. Remember this simple fact you loved the person to the point of having a child with them they deserve to see the child. The support they can provide to you and aid the child cannot be measured in dollars. Do not make this mistake. Attorneys and judges will tell you we can get this or that but in the end it is your children that have lost. Your children need the support of both loving parents willing to protect them from the legal system.
Economic Impact of joint custody
Many Studies have been conducted on the positive economic benefits to the child of joint custody and we ask you to research this subject on the World Wide Web and not depend on individuals who make their living from Family law. We ask that you review the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Fatherhood Initiative programs and the various foundations that are now funding and promoting the strong positive impact of fathers in the best interest of the children of America. We need to stress that both parents are needed to help the children develop. These programs express the need to help low income families and father to obtain the training they need to be the best parents they can be. We have attached two reprinted articles that outline the truth about economic impact of custody. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL article included below “The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” outlines percentages of mothers and fathers payments of child support. The Washington Times article “Child-support-law amendment comes to attention of Hill” outlines how custody becomes an incentive to pay child support. This article also shows the negative economic impact of driving child support payers into the underground economy. Reports of statistics of parents with joint custody pay their child support obligations at a much higher rate providing a reduction in Child-support enforcement.
Keep in mind that both parents should provide for the children. However the legal system destroys the earning potential with the systematic abuse of domestic violence laws. This abuse of domestic violence laws is called “abuse excuse” this is a legal trap to create high conflict child custody and divorce cases. The minute one party accuses the other party the long term earning potentials will be damages to the accused party. In no way can this be “in the best interest of the children”. Long term income damage will have long term impact on your family. Do not allow abused person programs or attorneys to suggest the use of the “abuse excuse” tactic for a divorce absent abuse, neglect and abandonment. Keep your divorce simple and low conflict to save money for your children. Keep your hurt and anger under control to keep the assets in the family.
To expand on the negative economic impact you just need to look deeply at how the justice system of the United States has removed resource from our productive citizens. The negative economic impact to the dysfunctional family with child custody and divorce conflicts is common knowledge. Everybody has heard the stories how the attorneys strip all the assets including housing from parents. Remember your attorney has NO financial obligation to you. They just want to make profit from your conflict. We call any service industry that doesn’t produce anything a parasitic industry. Any service industry that creates a demand for their services is in violation of federal racketeering laws defined under US. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 96§ 1961. Do not allow attorneys off the record suggestions to increase their fees. Document their off record suggestions with videos, collaborating witnesses or detailed letters. As these parasitic industries grow our society will not be able to support their greed.
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS
The most important thing to know is the timeframe for filing court documents. The court will hold to these technical timeframes to meet the needs of the courts business. KNOW THE TIMEFRAMES REQUIRED BY COURT RULES. The bad news is the court will allow lawyer’s to violate time frames with Sua Sponte motions to meet the needs of the courts business. These motions are used to protect the interest of the courts over the interest of the public. The courts have the power to conceal information with sealed records as a tactic to protect the business of the courts. So remember just because you filed something in a timely manner does not mean the court will accept it or act on it they might even seal it. You need to get you side on court record in a timely manner is the bottom line. What the courts do with the information is another issue. Objecting to information entered into record is very important and you attorney must do this in a timely manner. Expose the candor and lies quickly.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can be triggered by the loss of access to your children. Please learn about this disorder at http://www.ptsdalliance.org. This can be a life threatening disorder and can affect people in various ways.
The legal system has developed a system that preys on your basic parenting instincts. What they do is exploit a parent’s anger toward the other parent. This takes the form of a custody battle over the children. No consideration is given to the rights of the children to see both parents. Absent abuse, neglect and abandonment every child deserves both parents. As a parent we have all heard the stories of parents going “nuts” and killing their children and families. These are the stories that the media love to report on and are relatively very few. These cases serve the interest of the court to create a bias. These violent cases with media exposure create the fear and ultimately the bias the courts exploit for profit. This is one form of the “fight” we ask that if you intend to fight expose the injustice of the predatory practices of the judicial system. Hold the judges and lawyers accountable for their criminal actions by documenting them and filing proper criminal charges.
It is normal to get angry or depressed when you are removed from your children. Parental Alienation is one of the most traumatic experiences any person can endure. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects many parents at this point. As parents become depressed several things can happen. First when good parents are backed up against a wall some fight back with force. There is a book called “Kill the Attorneys” and a sad fact is many people are turning their anger towards biased judges. This has become a problem for this movement because judges are being targeted and killed. What seems to be happening is people are starting to take the time to plan military style assaults with diversions and escape routes to execute their violent plans. These tactics take time to plan and this level of anger is a direct result of parents having no place to turn for justice. Depressed parents are targeting and holding judges and attorneys accountable with violent actions. Sadly these violent acts service the interest of the courts with negative media coverage. These violent acts are due to legal professionals ignoring civil rights of parents in the first place.
As harsh legislation against parent’s rights is starting to be passed into law many parents are holding attorneys and judges accountable. The attorneys and judges motive is simple protect their profit making industry and cover up their wrong doing. These sworn legal professionals strip families of resources and place financial burdens on parents to meet federal funding requirements. We need to get to the root of the problem and use the pen and change legislation to take the profit out of these predatory practices. The issue is committees of the legislative bodies of our government are controlled by attorneys this is a true conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is not enforced to protect the interest of the public but neglected by the judicial branch. Judicial neglect to enforce conflict of interest laws to preserve the self interest of profit. Remember they are exploiting your parent child relationship for their profit.
The Second PTSD issue that doesn’t get the media’s attention is how many parents use “flight” to escape these legal attacks for profit. The CDC studies show how parents are committing suicide at an alarming rate. The studies show men have a higher success rate at committing suicide. These suicides are a direct result of predatory practices and place a negative economic impact on our society. The justice system has built in controls to protect them from being accused. These controls take the form of publicly funded social programs or crisis centers. Depression is a very powerful emotion and victims sometimes seek help from these programs. The truth is parents seeking help from social programs for their depression are labeled. They later find the very organization they went for help from are used against them in a court of law. This sometimes triggers a negative response and the person now feels they have no place to turn and they commit suicide. The legal system always terms their victims as unstable or mentally unstable for the media. These simple examples outline how when parents have no place to turn for justice their emotions kick in and becomes basic instincts of fight or flight. The trigger the legal profession doesn’t what you to know about is the following section. Parental alienation is currently being suppressed in legislation by legal professionals and abused person funded organizations.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test
Avoid this behavior the long term damage to your children cannot be repaired. The basic trust between child and parents should remain intact for both parents. It is the child’s right to have this trust of both parents. Use the Frye test information below to get your state to establish case law for PAS. Stop this form of child abuse.
What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? This is the definition of PAS as described by R.A. Gardner: http://www.paskids.com/ "The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." (Excerpted from: Gardner, R.A. (1998) The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.)
Be aware that the legal profession is trying to discredit this syndrome so they can continue to profit from your children. The best interest of your children is to have access to both parents. The courts and associated experts and social workers are defending their interests of profiting from your conflict. Their past actions expose them to huge liabilities for this form of child abuse. Make no mistake the judicial system will retaliate to defend against this liability. Get involved and use the Frye test to defeat the legal profession to protect your children and future children. In Maryland our Maryland law has only marginally addressed the issue in the case of Barton v. Hirshberg 137 Md.App. 1, 767 A.2d 874 Md.App., 2001. Courts outside of Maryland have reviewed the issue in greater detail and case law established listed below. The following websites will provide some insight to this complex issue:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2117396/the_gregory_mantell_show_parental_alienation_part_2/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nfdc_the-gregory-mantell-show-parental-a_shortfilms
http://www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/
http://www.paawareness.org/
http://www.stopparentalalienation.org/
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome.htm
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 2)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome2.htm
www.stopparentalalienation.org
www.breakthroughparentingservices.org
Expert:
Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., Executive Director Telephone: (310) 823-7846
Stop Parental Alienation of Children Fax: (310) 388-0700
Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. Email: jaynemajor@gmail.com
12405 Venice Boulevard, #172, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (Map)
Court Frye test Rulings Relevant to Parental Alienation for the UNITED STATES (2 States)
The Frye Test is the standard by which a court can determine whether a scientific contribution has gained enough general acceptances in the scientific community to be admissible in a court of law. The Frye Test criteria for admissibility were applied to The Parental Alienation Syndrome in the following cases:
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]
Court Rulings relevant to Parental Alienation (22 States)
Alabama
· Berry v. Berry, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, AL, Case No. DR-96-761.01. Jan 06, 2001
Alaska
· Pearson v. Pearson, Sup Ct. of AK., No. S-8973, No. 5297, 5 P.3d 239; 2000 Alas. Lexis 69. July 7, 2000.
Arkansas
· Chambers v. Chambers, Ct of App of AR, Div 2; 2000 Ark App. LEXIS 476, June 21, 2000.
California
· Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.
· John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996.
· Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671.
Colorado
· Oosterhaus v. Short, District Court, County of Boulder (CO), Case No. 85DR1737-Div III.
Connecticut
· Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 (Conn. Super.,Jul 16, 1996).
· Metza v. Metza, Sup. Court of Connecticut, Jud. Dist. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport,
1998 Conn. Super. Lexis 2727 (1998).
Florida
· Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
· Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778; 1998 Fla. App. Case No. 96-03534.
· Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
· Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Fl.,Case no. CD98-1285-FC. Mar 15, 2000.
o An exceptionally strong family court decision in which five experts testified to the diagnosis of PAS.
· Loten v. Ryan, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL., Case No. CD 93-6567 FA. Dec 11,2000.
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· McDonald v. McDonald, 9th Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, FL. Case No. D-R90-11079, Feb 20, 1001.
· Blackshear v. Blackshear, Hillsborough County, FL 13th Jud. Circuit: 95-08436.
Illinois
· In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
· In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
·
YouTube - Videos from this email
Saturday, October 30, 2010
"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back "
"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back " (Major Update, October 14)
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobody-gets-their-kids-back.html
The "Petition for Abuse/Neglect" filed on behalf of Cheyenne Irish by New Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleges that the baby, who was born on October 6, was "neglected" by her mother on that very day in the hospital where the infant was born.
What this means is that Stephanie Taylor's act of "neglect" was to give birth to her child, and that the only way she could have avoided that charge was to have Cheyenne killed in utero. Because Stephanie had neglected this supposed duty, the DCYF kidnapped Cheyenne a little more than 16 hours following her birth.
Barring a near-miraculous outcome, Cheyenne's parents will never get their daughter back. So testifies New Hampshire resident Dorothy Knightly. Between August 31, 2005 and February 3, 2006, Dorothy (who prefers to be called Dot) saw three of her grandchildren abducted by the DCYF on the basis of spurious child abuse and neglect allegations.
Dot's grandson Austin (who is now ten years old), was so traumatized by the kidnapping that he attempted suicide. As a result he was institutionalized and "medicated" with dangerous psychotropic drugs. Two of Dot's grandchildren have been adopted, and the DCYF won't permit any contact with the grandparents. Ally was placed with her father.
All of this began on August 31, 2005, when Dot's daughter Candy gave birth to a daughter named Isabella. At some point in the pregnancy Candy developed a condition called placenta previa. Although this usually requires that the child be delivered via C-section, Candy was put on a morphine drip and Isabella was delivered normally. Predictably, this meant that a urine test found morphine in Isabella's bloodstream -- a circumstance easily explained as a result of the circumstances of her birth, but was maliciously depicted as evidence that Candy had "abused" her baby through pre-natal drug use.
Believing that this matter would be quickly and easily cleared up, Dot and her husband applied for temporary custody of Isabella in their home. They eagerly and cheerfully cooperated with the DCYF out of the common but tragically mistaken belief that agencies of that kind are operated by people who actually care about children, governed by laws, and burdened with scruples.
"We let those people into our home," Knightly lamented to Pro Libertate. "We opened the door and greeted them with smiles. We offered them coffee and treated them well. We trusted them. We assured our daughter, `don't worry -- they're not going to take your baby.' We assumed that we had rights, that the law meant something, and that the people in the DCYF would have to obey the rules. We'll never make that mistake again, and we hope other people won't either."
Two weeks after Isabella was born, a false child abuse report was filed with the DCYF alleging that Austin and his sister Ally had been molested by their father, who was married to Dot's other daughter, Holly.When they were notified of the accusation, Dot and Holly immediately took the children to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center to be examined for evidence of molestation. A comprehensive screening revealed no evidence of abuse of any kind.
Nonetheless, during a preliminary hearing regarding custody of Isabella on September 26, 2005, DCYF official Kate McClure unflinchingly committed perjury by claiming that the medically debunked molestation charge had been "confirmed," adorning that lie with a critical decorative detail: The purported act has supposedly taken place in the grandparents' home.
Once that charge had been made by the DCYF, the fate of Dot's grandchildren was settled, in everything but the details.
A DCYF document entitled "Notice to Accused Parent" explains the ground rules that govern New Hampshire's "family law" court system: "All Court hearings and records of abuse and neglect cases are confidential. The hearings are not open to the public and only people involved in the case, or invited by the parties and approved by the Court, will be admitted to the Court hearings." In practice this means that DCYF banishes from such hearings anybody who can speak effectively on behalf of the accused.
A "preliminary hearing" can result in the DCYF being awarded "protective supervision or legal custody" over a child, "which would give DCYF the right to temporarily remove your child[ren] from parental care and custody and determine where and with whom your child[ren] will live," explains the document.
At no point in the process is it necessary to prove that abuse occurred. Even at an "adjudicatory hearing" -- the equivalent of a criminal trial -- the standard is a "preponderance of evidence," rather than a requirement to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the threshold for a judicial decision to award custody of a child to the DCYF is merely the presentation of "evidence."
In substantive terms, an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse qualifies as "evidence." In the same fashion, "temporary," as defined in New Hampshire child abuse cases, is a synonym for "indefinite." Once a judge has granted custody or protective supervision to the DCYF, the matter is placed beyond judicial remedy, and the child's fate will be determined by the child-snatcher bureaucracy.
After Candy was charged with "neglecting" Isabella by receiving a morphine drip during a difficult delivery, the grandparents were forbidden to present evidence at either the preliminary or the adjudicatory hearing. On October 3, 2005, the DCYF seized Isabella, who at the time was a little more than one month old. She was never seen again by her grandparents.Candy was allowed brief, sporadic visits until March of 2006.
One particularly provocative aspect of this case involves Candy's refusal to apply for DCYF-administered welfare benefits. On September 2, 2005 -- less than a month after Isabella was born -- DCYF employee Melissa Deane tried to persuade Candy to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Candy refused to do so, pointing out that she and Isabella would be living with the grandparents and wouldn't need welfare aid -- or the invasive government supervision that would come with it.
On September 28 -- two days after the preliminary hearing upheld the neglect charge against Candy -- Ms. Deane signed the application and filed it herself. A few days later, DCYF kidnapped Isabella from the hospital, eventually arranging for her adoption to another family.
Dot Knightly points out that as long as Isabella remained with Candy, the DCYF would not be able to obtain federal welfare funding in her name. That problem was "solved" by filing an application over the objections of Isabella's mother, and then stealing her child.
The DCYF then turned its predatory attention to Dot's other daughter, Holly, and her two children, Austin and Ally.
On January 19, 2006, Holly went to the hospital following a friend's suicide attempt. While there she was arrested for "belligerent behavior" by a police officer who believed that she was intoxicated. Although she was on various prescription medications (she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder), a test confirmed that there was no alcohol in her system at the time of her arrest. Regardless of that fact, Holly was charged with "child endangerment."
The arresting officer, Patrolman Josue I. Santia, delivered Holly's children Austin and Ally to Dot's home. Santia noted in his report that he and his partner "felt comfortable leaving the children in [the grandparents'] custody." On the following morning the grandparents were awarded temporary supervisory care over the children while the child endangerment charge was examined. That charge was eventually dropped, but DCYF wasn't willing to end its pursuit of Holly's kids.
Darren Hood Tucker, an attorney employed by DCYF, went "judge shopping" and "found another Judge willing to modify the court order" granting temporary custody to the grandparents, Dot Knightly recounted to Pro Libertate. Tucker was able to suborn a judge into ruling that it was inappropriate for Austin and Ally to have contact with Dot's daughter Candy -- whose only "offense" had been to give birth to a child who was later abducted by the DCYF.
"They sent four police officers to our home and took those children away at gunpoint," Dot recalls. "Poor Austin was literally dragged down the street kicking and screaming as the neighbors looked on." Shortly after the siblings were placed in a foster home in Merrimack, Austin -- who had no previous record of behavioral problems -- tried to hang himself.
News of the suicide attempt sent Holly rushing to the hospital, where she was intercepted by DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore. The caseworker "threatened my daughter Holly by stating that if Holly didn't sign Austin's admission to Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital ... the Judge would sign a court order terminating Holly's parental rights," Dot Knightly relates.
Just days earlier, Austin had been a bright-eyed, friendly, cheerful little boy.
Austin's disposition and physical appearance changed dramatically after he was seized by armed strangers and forced to take mind-altering drugs.
During the four months that DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore was on maternity leave (remember that detail; I'll return to it momentarily), Dot, her husband, and Austin's mother were able to have one brief phone call with Austin and his attending physician at the Psychiatric Hospital. The doctor told Dot that "after Austin spoke to his family his whole demeanor changed ... and he was not the same violent little boy as when he was admitted." When DCYF Supervisor Tracy Gubbins learned of that phone call, she issued instructions that there would be no further contact between Austin and his grandparents or his mother.
Austin with his Grandpa.
The only reason Dot was able to talk to her grandson was because the newly single caseworker was on maternity leave. Dot believes that Anna Salvatore -- who is now known as Anna Edlund -- may have become pregnant as a result of an affair.
"Holly and her husband had been having problems, but after this whole mess began they actually moved into a new apartment and seemed to be starting over," Dot told Pro Libertate. "The caseworker, or `home-wrecker,' Anna Salvatore found out about this and had them separated again within a week. Then Salvatore started to visit Holly's husband on nights and weekends, with or without the children, which eventually ruined her own marriage. And then she ended up divorced and pregnant -- after tearing my daughter's family apart."
After Austin was placed in a "pre-adoptive" home, Dot -- with the help of the new caseworker -- was able to arrange a few brief, supervised visits with Austin. During one of them, the traumatized little boy quietly informed his grandmother: "They told me that Holly's not my mother anymore."
"Honey, Holly is still your mother and will always be your mother," Dot replied -- thereby triggering the DCYF's retaliation reflex.
"From that time, all further visits were canceled," she recalled to Pro Libertate.
Not even this could be considered the crowning act of cruelty inflicted on this long-suffering family by New Hampshire's child "protection" racket.
By 2008, Dot -- who still hoped that she would be permitted to care for her grandchildren -- had completed her coursework to be a state-certified foster parent, but was refused a license. She was told by DCYF official Lorraine Bartlett that she would never be permitted to care for Austin out of fear that she would take him off the toxic psychotropic drugs he was forced to take.
Through a steady series of dilatory and obstructionist maneuvers, the DCYF made it impossible for Dot to qualify as a foster parent for her grandchildren. When it was decided that Austin would be adopted by another couple, Dot and her husband were instructed by Bartlett to write a good-bye letter to their grandson in order to bring "closure" to the atrocity. This gesture reminds me a bit of the way that firing squads employed by Ethiopian despot Mengistu Haile Mariam would force families of the victims to pay for the ammunition used to murder their loved ones.
Dot insisted that she would continue her legal efforts to get Austin back.
"Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."
(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original essay; some details have been changed in the interests of clarity.)
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobody-gets-their-kids-back.html
The "Petition for Abuse/Neglect" filed on behalf of Cheyenne Irish by New Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleges that the baby, who was born on October 6, was "neglected" by her mother on that very day in the hospital where the infant was born.
What this means is that Stephanie Taylor's act of "neglect" was to give birth to her child, and that the only way she could have avoided that charge was to have Cheyenne killed in utero. Because Stephanie had neglected this supposed duty, the DCYF kidnapped Cheyenne a little more than 16 hours following her birth.
Barring a near-miraculous outcome, Cheyenne's parents will never get their daughter back. So testifies New Hampshire resident Dorothy Knightly. Between August 31, 2005 and February 3, 2006, Dorothy (who prefers to be called Dot) saw three of her grandchildren abducted by the DCYF on the basis of spurious child abuse and neglect allegations.
Dot's grandson Austin (who is now ten years old), was so traumatized by the kidnapping that he attempted suicide. As a result he was institutionalized and "medicated" with dangerous psychotropic drugs. Two of Dot's grandchildren have been adopted, and the DCYF won't permit any contact with the grandparents. Ally was placed with her father.
All of this began on August 31, 2005, when Dot's daughter Candy gave birth to a daughter named Isabella. At some point in the pregnancy Candy developed a condition called placenta previa. Although this usually requires that the child be delivered via C-section, Candy was put on a morphine drip and Isabella was delivered normally. Predictably, this meant that a urine test found morphine in Isabella's bloodstream -- a circumstance easily explained as a result of the circumstances of her birth, but was maliciously depicted as evidence that Candy had "abused" her baby through pre-natal drug use.
Believing that this matter would be quickly and easily cleared up, Dot and her husband applied for temporary custody of Isabella in their home. They eagerly and cheerfully cooperated with the DCYF out of the common but tragically mistaken belief that agencies of that kind are operated by people who actually care about children, governed by laws, and burdened with scruples.
"We let those people into our home," Knightly lamented to Pro Libertate. "We opened the door and greeted them with smiles. We offered them coffee and treated them well. We trusted them. We assured our daughter, `don't worry -- they're not going to take your baby.' We assumed that we had rights, that the law meant something, and that the people in the DCYF would have to obey the rules. We'll never make that mistake again, and we hope other people won't either."
Two weeks after Isabella was born, a false child abuse report was filed with the DCYF alleging that Austin and his sister Ally had been molested by their father, who was married to Dot's other daughter, Holly.When they were notified of the accusation, Dot and Holly immediately took the children to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center to be examined for evidence of molestation. A comprehensive screening revealed no evidence of abuse of any kind.
Nonetheless, during a preliminary hearing regarding custody of Isabella on September 26, 2005, DCYF official Kate McClure unflinchingly committed perjury by claiming that the medically debunked molestation charge had been "confirmed," adorning that lie with a critical decorative detail: The purported act has supposedly taken place in the grandparents' home.
Once that charge had been made by the DCYF, the fate of Dot's grandchildren was settled, in everything but the details.
A DCYF document entitled "Notice to Accused Parent" explains the ground rules that govern New Hampshire's "family law" court system: "All Court hearings and records of abuse and neglect cases are confidential. The hearings are not open to the public and only people involved in the case, or invited by the parties and approved by the Court, will be admitted to the Court hearings." In practice this means that DCYF banishes from such hearings anybody who can speak effectively on behalf of the accused.
A "preliminary hearing" can result in the DCYF being awarded "protective supervision or legal custody" over a child, "which would give DCYF the right to temporarily remove your child[ren] from parental care and custody and determine where and with whom your child[ren] will live," explains the document.
At no point in the process is it necessary to prove that abuse occurred. Even at an "adjudicatory hearing" -- the equivalent of a criminal trial -- the standard is a "preponderance of evidence," rather than a requirement to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the threshold for a judicial decision to award custody of a child to the DCYF is merely the presentation of "evidence."
In substantive terms, an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse qualifies as "evidence." In the same fashion, "temporary," as defined in New Hampshire child abuse cases, is a synonym for "indefinite." Once a judge has granted custody or protective supervision to the DCYF, the matter is placed beyond judicial remedy, and the child's fate will be determined by the child-snatcher bureaucracy.
After Candy was charged with "neglecting" Isabella by receiving a morphine drip during a difficult delivery, the grandparents were forbidden to present evidence at either the preliminary or the adjudicatory hearing. On October 3, 2005, the DCYF seized Isabella, who at the time was a little more than one month old. She was never seen again by her grandparents.Candy was allowed brief, sporadic visits until March of 2006.
One particularly provocative aspect of this case involves Candy's refusal to apply for DCYF-administered welfare benefits. On September 2, 2005 -- less than a month after Isabella was born -- DCYF employee Melissa Deane tried to persuade Candy to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Candy refused to do so, pointing out that she and Isabella would be living with the grandparents and wouldn't need welfare aid -- or the invasive government supervision that would come with it.
On September 28 -- two days after the preliminary hearing upheld the neglect charge against Candy -- Ms. Deane signed the application and filed it herself. A few days later, DCYF kidnapped Isabella from the hospital, eventually arranging for her adoption to another family.
Dot Knightly points out that as long as Isabella remained with Candy, the DCYF would not be able to obtain federal welfare funding in her name. That problem was "solved" by filing an application over the objections of Isabella's mother, and then stealing her child.
The DCYF then turned its predatory attention to Dot's other daughter, Holly, and her two children, Austin and Ally.
On January 19, 2006, Holly went to the hospital following a friend's suicide attempt. While there she was arrested for "belligerent behavior" by a police officer who believed that she was intoxicated. Although she was on various prescription medications (she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder), a test confirmed that there was no alcohol in her system at the time of her arrest. Regardless of that fact, Holly was charged with "child endangerment."
The arresting officer, Patrolman Josue I. Santia, delivered Holly's children Austin and Ally to Dot's home. Santia noted in his report that he and his partner "felt comfortable leaving the children in [the grandparents'] custody." On the following morning the grandparents were awarded temporary supervisory care over the children while the child endangerment charge was examined. That charge was eventually dropped, but DCYF wasn't willing to end its pursuit of Holly's kids.
Darren Hood Tucker, an attorney employed by DCYF, went "judge shopping" and "found another Judge willing to modify the court order" granting temporary custody to the grandparents, Dot Knightly recounted to Pro Libertate. Tucker was able to suborn a judge into ruling that it was inappropriate for Austin and Ally to have contact with Dot's daughter Candy -- whose only "offense" had been to give birth to a child who was later abducted by the DCYF.
"They sent four police officers to our home and took those children away at gunpoint," Dot recalls. "Poor Austin was literally dragged down the street kicking and screaming as the neighbors looked on." Shortly after the siblings were placed in a foster home in Merrimack, Austin -- who had no previous record of behavioral problems -- tried to hang himself.
News of the suicide attempt sent Holly rushing to the hospital, where she was intercepted by DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore. The caseworker "threatened my daughter Holly by stating that if Holly didn't sign Austin's admission to Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital ... the Judge would sign a court order terminating Holly's parental rights," Dot Knightly relates.
Just days earlier, Austin had been a bright-eyed, friendly, cheerful little boy.
Austin's disposition and physical appearance changed dramatically after he was seized by armed strangers and forced to take mind-altering drugs.
During the four months that DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore was on maternity leave (remember that detail; I'll return to it momentarily), Dot, her husband, and Austin's mother were able to have one brief phone call with Austin and his attending physician at the Psychiatric Hospital. The doctor told Dot that "after Austin spoke to his family his whole demeanor changed ... and he was not the same violent little boy as when he was admitted." When DCYF Supervisor Tracy Gubbins learned of that phone call, she issued instructions that there would be no further contact between Austin and his grandparents or his mother.
Austin with his Grandpa.
The only reason Dot was able to talk to her grandson was because the newly single caseworker was on maternity leave. Dot believes that Anna Salvatore -- who is now known as Anna Edlund -- may have become pregnant as a result of an affair.
"Holly and her husband had been having problems, but after this whole mess began they actually moved into a new apartment and seemed to be starting over," Dot told Pro Libertate. "The caseworker, or `home-wrecker,' Anna Salvatore found out about this and had them separated again within a week. Then Salvatore started to visit Holly's husband on nights and weekends, with or without the children, which eventually ruined her own marriage. And then she ended up divorced and pregnant -- after tearing my daughter's family apart."
After Austin was placed in a "pre-adoptive" home, Dot -- with the help of the new caseworker -- was able to arrange a few brief, supervised visits with Austin. During one of them, the traumatized little boy quietly informed his grandmother: "They told me that Holly's not my mother anymore."
"Honey, Holly is still your mother and will always be your mother," Dot replied -- thereby triggering the DCYF's retaliation reflex.
"From that time, all further visits were canceled," she recalled to Pro Libertate.
Not even this could be considered the crowning act of cruelty inflicted on this long-suffering family by New Hampshire's child "protection" racket.
By 2008, Dot -- who still hoped that she would be permitted to care for her grandchildren -- had completed her coursework to be a state-certified foster parent, but was refused a license. She was told by DCYF official Lorraine Bartlett that she would never be permitted to care for Austin out of fear that she would take him off the toxic psychotropic drugs he was forced to take.
Through a steady series of dilatory and obstructionist maneuvers, the DCYF made it impossible for Dot to qualify as a foster parent for her grandchildren. When it was decided that Austin would be adopted by another couple, Dot and her husband were instructed by Bartlett to write a good-bye letter to their grandson in order to bring "closure" to the atrocity. This gesture reminds me a bit of the way that firing squads employed by Ethiopian despot Mengistu Haile Mariam would force families of the victims to pay for the ammunition used to murder their loved ones.
Dot insisted that she would continue her legal efforts to get Austin back.
"Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."
(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original essay; some details have been changed in the interests of clarity.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)