Whoa! Is this a fathers rights news release or what? Let's dissect this slowly, because this story is very, very bizarre.
1) Dad PHILLIP MONROE SMITH was arrested on child sex abuse charges back in October. But of course he's out on bond, because we always induldge perv daddies (Exhibits A & B: Grandfather and Father Powell up in Washington State). By any realistic standard, this man is a potential danger to any child, whether the victim was his daughter or some other girl (the records don't say).
2) Mom KIMBERLY SMITH apparently has custody of their 11-year-old daughter--as well she should, based on the evidence presented here. It appears that the custodial mom took off with the daughter in order to protect her from the perv daddy. Fair enough. We would be ashamed of any mother who failed to do the same. That's what good Mama Bears do, see. They protect their cubs.
3) And then: GIANT DOES NOT COMPUTE. MOM is suddenly in trouble for "abduction," and there are extremely vague insinuations that the child might be in danger? How can she be in trouble for abducting WHEN SHE HAS CUSTODY??? And what danger? If there is a genuine danger, why don't you tell us what it is? Maybe because there isn't any real danger? Just voodoo smoke and mirrors?
4) We already know this divorce has been labeled "contentious," meaning the perv daddy is trying to control the process and harass the mother. We can already see that somehow the perv daddy or his friends in high places are directing the news spin so this story is framed TOTALLY about locating the "abductor" mom, as if she were some kind of runaway slave that needed to be collected by her master.
5) Why are we labelling the whole family as needing "psychological evaluation"? What high crimes and misdeanors did Mom allegedly commit? Is she accused of molesting kids? Don't see anything mentioned here, other than the "crime" of protecting her child from a real or potential molester.
6) What the hell is this divorce doing in mediation? You NEVER use mediation where there pending criminal charges or even allegations of criminal behavior. "Mediating" with criminals just means giving them an additional avenue to abuse or threaten people in their families. The only ones who prefer mediation in cases involving child abuse and/or domestic violence are criminals and their defenders in the abusive fathers lobby. The only time mediation is EVER legitimately indicated is in amicable divorce settlements. Period.
This is just sick, sick, sick. Fear for the mothers and children of Texas....
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/08/3720210/father-of-missing-fort-worth-girl.html
Father of missing Fort Worth girl faces sexual abuse charge
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2012 Updated Friday, Feb. 10, 2012
By Mitch Mitchell
FORT WORTH -- The father of a missing 11-year-old Fort Worth girl was arrested in October on a charge of sexually abusing a young child, and the estranged family was ordered to undergo psychological evaluations, records show.
Police on Wednesday continued to search for Jessica Smith, who was taken from her Indiana Avenue home by her mother, Kimberly, overnight Monday.
They have said that she might be in danger, but provided no further details. Kimberly Smith, 42, was living with her daughter at the home and apparently has custody.
Jessica's father, Phillip Monroe Smith, 36, is facing a charge of sexual abuse of a child under 14, police and court records show. He was arrested in October and released from jail after posting a $100,000 bond, records from the Tarrant County district clerk's office show.
Phillip and Kimberly Smith are going through a divorce that has been described as contentious.
A relative speculated that the mother may have taken Jessica to prevent Phillip Smith from visiting his 11-year-old daughter.
Police have not said whether Phillip Smith is involved in Jessica's disappearance, nor do the records indicate the identity of the alleged abuse victim.
The court set forth temporary orders in October that required psychological and social evaluations for Kimberly, Jessica and Phillip Smith. The divorce case was referred to mediation.
Kimberly Smith was driving a silver 2007 Mazda CX-9, with Texas plates BMZ-390. It has tinted windows and a pink and green Harley-Davidson decal on the rear window, according to police.
Jessica is about 5-foot-1 and 120 pounds, with brown hair just past her shoulders, police said.
A photo of Jessica distributed by police shows her wearing glasses, but she was not wearing them at the time of her abduction.
Kimberly Smith is described as 5-foot-2 and 150 pounds, with brown hair and brown eyes.
Kimberly Smith has a tattoo cross on the back of her neck and a decorative tattoo on her back, police said.
Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mediation. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Friday, February 11, 2011
Mediator blows whistle, prompts audit of family court services (Nevada County, California)
The evidence for family court corruption just grows higher and deeper everyday. Mediation is not the magic answer to every family's problems, especially for families with abusive fathers ("domestic violence"). And it's not really mediation if participants are coerced or threatened, is it?
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/documents/FinalEmilyRelease.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:February 10,2011
CONTACT:Emily Gallup
–
530.478.1340
emilygallup@yahoo.com
Kathleen Russell
–
415.250.1180
kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org
Mediator Blows Whistle, Prompts Audit of Nevada County Family
Court Services
Court Took Retaliatory Action Against Mediator for Repeatedly Raising Issues
Nevada County, CA – A Family Court Services mediator has prevailed in her grievance against her former employer, the Nevada County Superior Court, prompting an independent audit of the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. Emily Gallup claimed that Nevada County Family Court Services violated state statutes and rules of court governing the recommending mediation process, while retaliating against her after she raised these issues with courts officials. M. Catherine Jones of Nevada City represented Ms. Gallup.
“The Nevada County Superior Court and its mediators have been using undue influence to pressure parents into custody agreements,” says Gallup. Among the tactics used by the courts, Gallup explained that parents were routinely shown a picture of a young man who had committed suicide the day his parents had been unable to reach an agreement in court.
Mediators were also pressured to complete their cases in one hour’s time.
According to Gallup, violations include failure to review legal files and criminal records, failure to contact collateral sources, and failure to follow domestic violence protocol. Gallup maintains that children and families throughout Nevada County have been harmed by the flawed practices of the family court department.
Family Court mediators, like Gallup, are required by law to guide parents into reasonable custody arrangements that protect children’s best interests. Mediators in recommending counties, like Nevada County, are also charged with the task of making child custody recommendations to the court in the absence of parental agreement. These recommendations carry great weight with the court, and are usually ordered.
“Emily’s courageous first-hand account proves beyond a doubt what court reform advocates have been saying for years – and what the recent state audit confirms. Complaints about mediators ignoring criminal records, domestic violence protocols and endangering children’s lives are legitimate,” said Kathleen Russell, Executive Director for the Center for Judicial Excellence, which pushed for the recent state audit.
The order for an audit of the Nevada County Superior Court comes just weeks after the conclusion of a 17-month audit of the Family Court Services departments of Sacramento and Marin counties. The audit of those counties revealed that large numbers of mediators are unqualified, untrained and unsupervised, and that the family courts maintained inadequate complaint procedures for the public. Gallup believes that a statewide audit is warranted at this time.
In a final and binding award dated February 6, 2011, Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that Gallup “had reasonable cause to believe that the Department of Family Court Services had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the mediations required by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court.” He further ordered Family Court Services to undergo an audit to assess its compliance with the law. The cost of this audit will be born exclusively by the court, and the results will be released to the public.
Gallup repeatedly tried to address her concerns about the department with her superiors, including the Interim Director, the Family Law Judge, the Human Resources’ Director, and the Court’s Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Gallup’s efforts to bring her department into compliance with the law were unsuccessful.
Arbitrator Burdick found that “the Court took reprisal actions against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these issues.” Retaliatory activity against Gallup included negative performance evaluations, denial of her annual pay increase, and a written reprimand delivered to her the afternoon before her scheduled weeklong vacation. She was subsequently terminated from her job on December 21, 2010, prior to the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Burdick ordered the court to reimburse Gallup for her annual raise, her leave time, and attorney fees. It is estimated that the court’s handling of Gallup’s case has already cost taxpayers at least $100,000.
###
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/documents/FinalEmilyRelease.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:February 10,2011
CONTACT:Emily Gallup
–
530.478.1340
emilygallup@yahoo.com
Kathleen Russell
–
415.250.1180
kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org
Mediator Blows Whistle, Prompts Audit of Nevada County Family
Court Services
Court Took Retaliatory Action Against Mediator for Repeatedly Raising Issues
Nevada County, CA – A Family Court Services mediator has prevailed in her grievance against her former employer, the Nevada County Superior Court, prompting an independent audit of the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. Emily Gallup claimed that Nevada County Family Court Services violated state statutes and rules of court governing the recommending mediation process, while retaliating against her after she raised these issues with courts officials. M. Catherine Jones of Nevada City represented Ms. Gallup.
“The Nevada County Superior Court and its mediators have been using undue influence to pressure parents into custody agreements,” says Gallup. Among the tactics used by the courts, Gallup explained that parents were routinely shown a picture of a young man who had committed suicide the day his parents had been unable to reach an agreement in court.
Mediators were also pressured to complete their cases in one hour’s time.
According to Gallup, violations include failure to review legal files and criminal records, failure to contact collateral sources, and failure to follow domestic violence protocol. Gallup maintains that children and families throughout Nevada County have been harmed by the flawed practices of the family court department.
Family Court mediators, like Gallup, are required by law to guide parents into reasonable custody arrangements that protect children’s best interests. Mediators in recommending counties, like Nevada County, are also charged with the task of making child custody recommendations to the court in the absence of parental agreement. These recommendations carry great weight with the court, and are usually ordered.
“Emily’s courageous first-hand account proves beyond a doubt what court reform advocates have been saying for years – and what the recent state audit confirms. Complaints about mediators ignoring criminal records, domestic violence protocols and endangering children’s lives are legitimate,” said Kathleen Russell, Executive Director for the Center for Judicial Excellence, which pushed for the recent state audit.
The order for an audit of the Nevada County Superior Court comes just weeks after the conclusion of a 17-month audit of the Family Court Services departments of Sacramento and Marin counties. The audit of those counties revealed that large numbers of mediators are unqualified, untrained and unsupervised, and that the family courts maintained inadequate complaint procedures for the public. Gallup believes that a statewide audit is warranted at this time.
In a final and binding award dated February 6, 2011, Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that Gallup “had reasonable cause to believe that the Department of Family Court Services had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the mediations required by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court.” He further ordered Family Court Services to undergo an audit to assess its compliance with the law. The cost of this audit will be born exclusively by the court, and the results will be released to the public.
Gallup repeatedly tried to address her concerns about the department with her superiors, including the Interim Director, the Family Law Judge, the Human Resources’ Director, and the Court’s Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Gallup’s efforts to bring her department into compliance with the law were unsuccessful.
Arbitrator Burdick found that “the Court took reprisal actions against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these issues.” Retaliatory activity against Gallup included negative performance evaluations, denial of her annual pay increase, and a written reprimand delivered to her the afternoon before her scheduled weeklong vacation. She was subsequently terminated from her job on December 21, 2010, prior to the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Burdick ordered the court to reimburse Gallup for her annual raise, her leave time, and attorney fees. It is estimated that the court’s handling of Gallup’s case has already cost taxpayers at least $100,000.
###
Monday, May 24, 2010
Alert: Mediators make misrepresentations in order to convince dv victims to use their services (DuPage County, Illinois)
Excellent post from Justice's Posterous.
Back when I lived in Jamestown, New York, mediation was a huge kickback racket pushed by "I Love Being a Dad," the local fathers rights group. They obviously saw mediation as a way for batterers to get the "upper hand" in a custodial "dispute," as becomes apparent when you read the history below.
Here's the background: Family Services of Jamestown, at least in mid-1990s, administered a Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (PEACE) program that was marketed as a statewide “dispute resolution” program offering an “alternative approach to resolving the issues of custody and visitation.”
The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV)—to mention just one domestic violence organization—strongly cautioned against the use of counseling, alternative dispute resolution services, or mediation for persons who have been in abusive relationships. Usually, such programs are found to pose significant safety concerns and to encourage victim-blaming and “compromise.”
Given this, it’s highly suggestive that the president of “I Love Being a Dad,” a Jamestown FRs association affiliated with Fathers’ Rights Association of New York (FRANY), served on the board of Family Services of Jamestown and that “I Love Being a Dad” promoted its mediation services in its organizational literature.
It also should be noted that when another board member of “I Love Being a Dad” was charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree and criminal trespassing in the second degree subsequent to an incident at his ex-wife’s house, the fathers’ rights board member in question actually sent a letter to the Jamestown Post-Journal arguing that counseling or mediation (rather than his arrest) would represent “better ways of dealing with unresolved feelings and issues.” Unfortunately, the board member in question was apparently incapable of following through on his own advice, as he was soon thereafter charged with harassment in yet another incident.
This is what fathers rights people are all about, whether it's in Jamestown, California, Australia, or elsewhere. Nothing but a lot of petty criminals attempting to pass themselves off as "concerned fathers." In reality, all they want to do it continue their abuse and coercive control of their families.
Alert: Mediators make misrepresentations in order to convince dv victims to use their services
A press release at http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/illinois-divorce-mediation-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-152006.php by Wolfe & Stec, Ltd. of Dupage County, Illinois, claims that mediation should be permitted in domestic violence cases. They claim that women could save money using mediation, and that "the no-mediation policy is in place because of the belief that a domestic violence victim may be intimidated or manipulated by his or her abuser in a mediation setting."
This is a half-truth -- which means it's a misrepresentation, i.e. a false statement. The no-mediation policy also is in place because domestic violence victims need enforceable custody arrangements, financial awards, and court orders that will help protect them and their children for years going forward. Abusers aren't going to agree to these. And the majority of intimidation and coercion takes place outside of the legal system, not in the presence of third parties.
The press release claims that dv victims have been "denied access to mediation to resolve" their family court issues. These claims are specious. There is no "resolution" of child custody issues in family court with a committed abuser. At best, a mediated agreement only postpones the issues -- and costs -- to the almost inevitable post-decree litigation, when even women who originally had lawyers may no longer have representation. Worse, agreed settlements not only cannot be appealed, but also mean that evidentiary findings did not get into the case record.
These mediators' ostensible desire to give dv victims the "choice" to have mediation ignores that unrepresented women without funds are even more susceptible to coercion outside of the legal system, and not only might not fully raise the history of abuse to a mediator, but also (thanks to press releases such as the above) might not realize what rights they do have, such as that courts have the power to order their husbands to pay their attorneys' fees. (Mediators are not permitted to give legal advice, and are not required by ethical rules to assure fair or beneficial "resolutions".)
Nor is any mediator going to be liable if a woman "chooses" incorrectly. Consider these contradictory CYA trade promotion statements right in the same press release:
"...the problem with a total ban on mediation is that victims of spousal abuse often do not have sufficient resources to hire an attorney..."
"It is important for victims of domestic violence to...discuss their options with a qualified attorney... experienced representation can mean a world of difference either in court or in mediation."
Of the hundreds of emails Justice gets every year from women who are in post-decree misery, overwhelmingly, the majority dug themselves (or were thrown) into a hole when they initially "agreed" to joint custody orders and/or inadequate financial settlements in the hope that this would "resolve" the issues. Very often these agreements were made in mediation, and sometimes even while represented by lawyers wanting to get out of their case. Courts and judges are far from perfect, but mediating abuse cases is rarely the solution (especially without shrewd and calculated attorney representation in connection with the decision to do so and the process). If anything, the above press release proves that these mediators do not understand domestic violence or what kind of "resolution" is required by dv victims and their children.
[By the way, we do not recommend "caucus" mediation procedure for anyone in family law cases. In the caucus procedure, instead of sitting around a table, the parties remain in separate rooms while the mediator deliberately filters, interprets, and recasts their respective statements and positions, going back and forth between the parties and urging them to agree. But the information blackout goes both ways. Empowered negotiation requires a party to be able to assess the other's exact words, demeanor and expressions in order to discern the other's goals and intentions. This is particularly important for victims of abuse because abusers can present well to third parties who can fail to recognize disguised meanings and motives and thus ignorantly, even if unintentionally, misrepresent what is actually going on. It is unlikely in these days of "shared parenting" goals and fatherhood exaltation, and exhortations to speak only nicely of "co-parents", that any process designed to keep certain kinds of information from the parties in order to get them to compromise and settle is going to benefit dv victims or protective mothers.]
See the liz library for more information on "therapeutic jurisprudence".
Back when I lived in Jamestown, New York, mediation was a huge kickback racket pushed by "I Love Being a Dad," the local fathers rights group. They obviously saw mediation as a way for batterers to get the "upper hand" in a custodial "dispute," as becomes apparent when you read the history below.
Here's the background: Family Services of Jamestown, at least in mid-1990s, administered a Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (PEACE) program that was marketed as a statewide “dispute resolution” program offering an “alternative approach to resolving the issues of custody and visitation.”
The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV)—to mention just one domestic violence organization—strongly cautioned against the use of counseling, alternative dispute resolution services, or mediation for persons who have been in abusive relationships. Usually, such programs are found to pose significant safety concerns and to encourage victim-blaming and “compromise.”
Given this, it’s highly suggestive that the president of “I Love Being a Dad,” a Jamestown FRs association affiliated with Fathers’ Rights Association of New York (FRANY), served on the board of Family Services of Jamestown and that “I Love Being a Dad” promoted its mediation services in its organizational literature.
It also should be noted that when another board member of “I Love Being a Dad” was charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree and criminal trespassing in the second degree subsequent to an incident at his ex-wife’s house, the fathers’ rights board member in question actually sent a letter to the Jamestown Post-Journal arguing that counseling or mediation (rather than his arrest) would represent “better ways of dealing with unresolved feelings and issues.” Unfortunately, the board member in question was apparently incapable of following through on his own advice, as he was soon thereafter charged with harassment in yet another incident.
This is what fathers rights people are all about, whether it's in Jamestown, California, Australia, or elsewhere. Nothing but a lot of petty criminals attempting to pass themselves off as "concerned fathers." In reality, all they want to do it continue their abuse and coercive control of their families.
Notes
New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, “Model Domestic Violence Policy for Counties,” January 1999, at http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/coordination/model_policy/guiding.html.
Cheryl Mason, “Fathers Cope with Being Part-Time Parents,” Jamestown Post-Journal, October 26, 1997.
Jamestown Post-Journal, December 28, 2003; Jamestown Post-Journal, January 11, 2004; Jamestown Post-Journal, January 25, 2004.
Guess what, folks! My daughter is 18 today, so no more joint custody with her abusive father, no more corrupt, incompetent idiots interfering in our lives! I no longer care about threats from the "authorities" in Chautauqua County. Now it's time to drag their manure into the light of day.
http://justice.posterous.com/trade-promotion-press-release-touts-pretextuaAlert: Mediators make misrepresentations in order to convince dv victims to use their services
A press release at http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/illinois-divorce-mediation-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-152006.php by Wolfe & Stec, Ltd. of Dupage County, Illinois, claims that mediation should be permitted in domestic violence cases. They claim that women could save money using mediation, and that "the no-mediation policy is in place because of the belief that a domestic violence victim may be intimidated or manipulated by his or her abuser in a mediation setting."
This is a half-truth -- which means it's a misrepresentation, i.e. a false statement. The no-mediation policy also is in place because domestic violence victims need enforceable custody arrangements, financial awards, and court orders that will help protect them and their children for years going forward. Abusers aren't going to agree to these. And the majority of intimidation and coercion takes place outside of the legal system, not in the presence of third parties.
The press release claims that dv victims have been "denied access to mediation to resolve" their family court issues. These claims are specious. There is no "resolution" of child custody issues in family court with a committed abuser. At best, a mediated agreement only postpones the issues -- and costs -- to the almost inevitable post-decree litigation, when even women who originally had lawyers may no longer have representation. Worse, agreed settlements not only cannot be appealed, but also mean that evidentiary findings did not get into the case record.
These mediators' ostensible desire to give dv victims the "choice" to have mediation ignores that unrepresented women without funds are even more susceptible to coercion outside of the legal system, and not only might not fully raise the history of abuse to a mediator, but also (thanks to press releases such as the above) might not realize what rights they do have, such as that courts have the power to order their husbands to pay their attorneys' fees. (Mediators are not permitted to give legal advice, and are not required by ethical rules to assure fair or beneficial "resolutions".)
Nor is any mediator going to be liable if a woman "chooses" incorrectly. Consider these contradictory CYA trade promotion statements right in the same press release:
"...the problem with a total ban on mediation is that victims of spousal abuse often do not have sufficient resources to hire an attorney..."
"It is important for victims of domestic violence to...discuss their options with a qualified attorney... experienced representation can mean a world of difference either in court or in mediation."
Of the hundreds of emails Justice gets every year from women who are in post-decree misery, overwhelmingly, the majority dug themselves (or were thrown) into a hole when they initially "agreed" to joint custody orders and/or inadequate financial settlements in the hope that this would "resolve" the issues. Very often these agreements were made in mediation, and sometimes even while represented by lawyers wanting to get out of their case. Courts and judges are far from perfect, but mediating abuse cases is rarely the solution (especially without shrewd and calculated attorney representation in connection with the decision to do so and the process). If anything, the above press release proves that these mediators do not understand domestic violence or what kind of "resolution" is required by dv victims and their children.
[By the way, we do not recommend "caucus" mediation procedure for anyone in family law cases. In the caucus procedure, instead of sitting around a table, the parties remain in separate rooms while the mediator deliberately filters, interprets, and recasts their respective statements and positions, going back and forth between the parties and urging them to agree. But the information blackout goes both ways. Empowered negotiation requires a party to be able to assess the other's exact words, demeanor and expressions in order to discern the other's goals and intentions. This is particularly important for victims of abuse because abusers can present well to third parties who can fail to recognize disguised meanings and motives and thus ignorantly, even if unintentionally, misrepresent what is actually going on. It is unlikely in these days of "shared parenting" goals and fatherhood exaltation, and exhortations to speak only nicely of "co-parents", that any process designed to keep certain kinds of information from the parties in order to get them to compromise and settle is going to benefit dv victims or protective mothers.]
See the liz library for more information on "therapeutic jurisprudence".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)