How much do you want to bet that the ex-wife/partner of JASON NICHOLS was terrorized for years with similar abuse tactics?
And how much do you want to bet that there is fathers rights movement involvement in this somewhere? These guys are often egging each other on to pull off these stunts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3618812/Man-frees-Kansas-judge-hourslong-hostage-standoff.html
Bitter father 'took Kansas judge and his wife hostage in their home over child custody case'
Authorities say armed suspect Jason Nichols forced his way into 61-year-old Wendel Wurst's Garden City home and confronted the couple
Garden City Police Chief Michael Utz says Nichols ordered Wurst to the ground and bound the judge's hands
Utz says Wurst's 62-year-old wife Rhonda Wurst was allowed to use the bathroom, where she called police on her cellphone. She was later released
The standoff ended more than five hours later, at which time Wurst was freed
By Associated Press and Zoe Szathmary For Dailymail.com
Published: 18:51 EST, 31 May 2016 | Updated: 03:23 EST, 1 June 2016
Police in western Kansas say a gunman who held Finney County's chief judge and his wife hostage over a child custody matter eventually surrendered and the two were released unharmed.
Authorities say the standoff began shortly before 7am Tuesday, when the armed suspect Jason Nichols forced his way into 61-year-old Wendel Wurst's Garden City home and confronted the couple.
Garden City Police Chief Michael Utz says Nichols ordered Wurst to the ground and bound the judge's hands.
Utz says Wurst's 62-year-old wife Rhonda Wurst was allowed to use the bathroom, where she called police on her cellphone. She was later released.
The standoff ended more than five hours later, at which time Wurst was freed.
Police say the suspect was upset over a custody case Wurst handled.
Garden City police wrote on Facebook Tuesday: 'The hostage situation has been resolved without incident.
'There are still a lot of moving parts in the investigation, please stay away from the area.
'The suspect and hostage are okay.'
Utz was filmed by KWCH saying: 'After several hours of negotiation, the suspect surrendered at 12.34pm this afternoon and was taken into custody without incident.
'Chief Judge Wurst was located and is in good health.'
Nichols may be charged for aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, terrorism, and criminal threat, the TV station reported.
Showing posts with label family court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family court. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Custodial dad on trial for torturing son still has unsupervised visitation with other kids (Ontario, Canada)
At first you might chalk some of this up to incompetence. But as it goes on and on, down to this freaking piece of sh** of a father CONTINUING to get UNSUPERVISED VISITATION that this is thorough and complete corruption of the family court system by the fathers rights people.
And all their names are being withheld to "protect" the identity of the boy. The boy they set up for torture. Uh huh.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/04/29/mountie-in-child-abuse-trial-has-unsupervised-visits-with-his-other-children
Mountie in child abuse trial has unsupervised visits with his other children
By Gary Dimmock
First posted: Friday, April 29, 2016 08:16 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, April 29, 2016 08:36 PM EDT
The Mountie on trial for torturing and starving his shackled, naked 11-year-old son in a darkened Kanata basement is free on bail and has unsupervised weekend visits with his two other sons, who are younger than the first-born son he is accused of almost starving to death in 2013.
The father, who has admitted that he burned his oldest son’s genitals because he thought the boy was the devil, can still play with his other sons on weekends. The unsupervised visits happen outside of Ottawa and the stepmother, who is also on trial, is not present for the visits.
The father has said he chained and handcuffed his son in the basement, and that he rationed the boy’s meals down to just two peanut-butter pitas a day. He also confessed that he burned his son with a lighter and once hit him so hard with the back of his hand that the boy was left with a broken tooth, court has heard.
The victim was sent to live with his father after his mother died in 2009. The boy’s maternal grandmother went to court in 2011 to try to win visitation rights, but a judge rejected her motion. The boy was distraught about his mother’s death and torn between his maternal and paternal family. The judge who dismissed the grandmother’s motion relied on the Mountie’s story and the child psychologist he enlisted.
The psychologist recommended the boy should remain in the full-time care of the father and his wife, both of whom are now on trial.
The same psychologist told the boy’s father in 2010 that he couldn’t “terrorize” his son, and warned him that if he kept punishing the boy, he’d have to call in the child-protection office.
The judge who heard the case was also aware of allegations that the Mountie was an abusive father.
Still, the judge ruled the boy’s maternal family could not have visitation rights. In the 2011 decision, the judge said the father was to send report cards and a school photograph of the boy to his maternal relatives. And if there was correspondence between the boy and his maternal family, the judge ruled that the controlling Mountie was allowed to read all letters sent to the boy he later tortured.
Two years after that ruling, on Feb. 12, 2013, the boy escaped his chains and fled his Kanata basement in search of water. He weighed only 50 pounds and doctors said he had almost starved to death.
One neighbour spotted the boy crouched at his garden tap with an empty water bottle in hand, so he filled it up for the boy in the kitchen, handing it back to him through the patio door.
“I thought I was looking at a ghost. His face was sunken. He looked very old,” the neighbour testified last year at the trial, which began last September.
The boy’s father and stepmother are accused of keeping the boy shackled in their basement for six months. Both are charged with aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and failure to provide necessities of life.
One of their neighbours testified that the boy showed up at their front door around suppertime on the day of his escape.
She told court that she hadn’t seen the boy in a year and a half.
He used to be “chubby, happy and full of energy,” she said. “He was completely changed. I couldn’t recognize him.”
The boy appeared nervous, she said, and fumbled for piggy-bank change from his pocket, offering it while asking if he could stay at her home.
She started walking the boy back to his own home, but when the boy complained of back pain, her husband called the police.
Crown attorney Michael Boyce also called another neighbour to testify about the boy. She said he was small for his age, and occasionally wasn’t wearing proper winter clothes while waiting for the morning school bus, usually alone and across the street from where the other kids stood while his father watched from a car parked down the road.
The woman testified that the boy wasn’t allowed to go to birthday parties in the neighbourhood. She said that when she offered the thirsty boy a juice box, he said he had to go ask his father for permission. The boy returned and said he wasn’t allowed, the neighbour recalled.
The boy’s father and stepmother are prohibited from talking to one another, according to their bail conditions. The suspended Mountie is also charged with careless storage of 9-mm Luger. Lawyers for both of the accused declined to comment Friday.
The Children’s Aid Society has a policy not to comment on such cases.
The trial, presided by Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger, continues Monday. There is a publication ban on several witnesses — including the child psychologist — to protect the identity of the boy.
And all their names are being withheld to "protect" the identity of the boy. The boy they set up for torture. Uh huh.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/04/29/mountie-in-child-abuse-trial-has-unsupervised-visits-with-his-other-children
Mountie in child abuse trial has unsupervised visits with his other children
By Gary Dimmock
First posted: Friday, April 29, 2016 08:16 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, April 29, 2016 08:36 PM EDT
The Mountie on trial for torturing and starving his shackled, naked 11-year-old son in a darkened Kanata basement is free on bail and has unsupervised weekend visits with his two other sons, who are younger than the first-born son he is accused of almost starving to death in 2013.
The father, who has admitted that he burned his oldest son’s genitals because he thought the boy was the devil, can still play with his other sons on weekends. The unsupervised visits happen outside of Ottawa and the stepmother, who is also on trial, is not present for the visits.
The father has said he chained and handcuffed his son in the basement, and that he rationed the boy’s meals down to just two peanut-butter pitas a day. He also confessed that he burned his son with a lighter and once hit him so hard with the back of his hand that the boy was left with a broken tooth, court has heard.
The victim was sent to live with his father after his mother died in 2009. The boy’s maternal grandmother went to court in 2011 to try to win visitation rights, but a judge rejected her motion. The boy was distraught about his mother’s death and torn between his maternal and paternal family. The judge who dismissed the grandmother’s motion relied on the Mountie’s story and the child psychologist he enlisted.
The psychologist recommended the boy should remain in the full-time care of the father and his wife, both of whom are now on trial.
The same psychologist told the boy’s father in 2010 that he couldn’t “terrorize” his son, and warned him that if he kept punishing the boy, he’d have to call in the child-protection office.
The judge who heard the case was also aware of allegations that the Mountie was an abusive father.
Still, the judge ruled the boy’s maternal family could not have visitation rights. In the 2011 decision, the judge said the father was to send report cards and a school photograph of the boy to his maternal relatives. And if there was correspondence between the boy and his maternal family, the judge ruled that the controlling Mountie was allowed to read all letters sent to the boy he later tortured.
Two years after that ruling, on Feb. 12, 2013, the boy escaped his chains and fled his Kanata basement in search of water. He weighed only 50 pounds and doctors said he had almost starved to death.
One neighbour spotted the boy crouched at his garden tap with an empty water bottle in hand, so he filled it up for the boy in the kitchen, handing it back to him through the patio door.
“I thought I was looking at a ghost. His face was sunken. He looked very old,” the neighbour testified last year at the trial, which began last September.
The boy’s father and stepmother are accused of keeping the boy shackled in their basement for six months. Both are charged with aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and failure to provide necessities of life.
One of their neighbours testified that the boy showed up at their front door around suppertime on the day of his escape.
She told court that she hadn’t seen the boy in a year and a half.
He used to be “chubby, happy and full of energy,” she said. “He was completely changed. I couldn’t recognize him.”
The boy appeared nervous, she said, and fumbled for piggy-bank change from his pocket, offering it while asking if he could stay at her home.
She started walking the boy back to his own home, but when the boy complained of back pain, her husband called the police.
Crown attorney Michael Boyce also called another neighbour to testify about the boy. She said he was small for his age, and occasionally wasn’t wearing proper winter clothes while waiting for the morning school bus, usually alone and across the street from where the other kids stood while his father watched from a car parked down the road.
The woman testified that the boy wasn’t allowed to go to birthday parties in the neighbourhood. She said that when she offered the thirsty boy a juice box, he said he had to go ask his father for permission. The boy returned and said he wasn’t allowed, the neighbour recalled.
The boy’s father and stepmother are prohibited from talking to one another, according to their bail conditions. The suspended Mountie is also charged with careless storage of 9-mm Luger. Lawyers for both of the accused declined to comment Friday.
The Children’s Aid Society has a policy not to comment on such cases.
The trial, presided by Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger, continues Monday. There is a publication ban on several witnesses — including the child psychologist — to protect the identity of the boy.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Dad who assaulted mom, held knife to daughter's chest AWARDED CHILD ACCESS after getting out of prison (Australia)
Sickening, but all too common. Dad is identified only by his last name, a pseudonym.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-court-judgement-father-who-bashed-partner-and-threatened-child-granted-access-20160401-gnw5ne.html
Family Court judgement: Father who bashed partner and threatened child granted access
Date April 3, 2016
Rachel Olding Reporter
A man who bashed his partner and held a samurai sword to his daughter's chest has been granted access to the nine-year-old following his release from jail.
The long-running dispute in the Family Court has incensed anti-violence advocates, who say the court still has a poor understanding of domestic violence and is too often granting access when there has been a history of violence.
It comes amid calls to nationalise the recommendations from Victoria's landmark Royal Commission into Family Violence report released during the week.
It recommended an overhaul of the entire court system, including the creation of specialist family violence courts.
A photograph showing the injuries inflicted upon a domestic abuse survivor who was later told that the man who bashed her should be allowed to visit their daughter.
Given the pseudonyms Ms Tindall and Mr Saldo, the couple from Sydney have been bitterly fighting over parenting orders since their relationship ended in 2008.
The court had ordered weekly paternal visits but, in August 2010, Ms Tindall suddenly stopped dropping the child at meetings because she had given evidence against Mr Saldo in his criminal trial for bashing her, tying her to a chair and holding a sword at the child in their Sydney home in 2007.
Graphic photographs tendered in the District Court showed bruising sustained by Ms Tindall, 34, when her then partner repeatedly punched her because he believed she had tried to cheat on him.
He pleaded guilty during the trial and was sentenced to at least two-and-a-half years prison.
Ms Tindall was convicted in 2013 of 20 breaches of the parenting orders because Justice Stewart Austin believed the criminal trial didn't constitute "a change in the family dynamic" that would warrant her halting weekly visits.
"The father's decision to publicly admit his past violent behaviour changed nothing about the history of the parties' relationship," he said, in a judgement that was later overturned by the Full Court.
After being released on parole in 2014, Mr Saldo, 38, applied to have his regular visits reinstated.
He expressed no remorse, saying he was pressured into pleading guilty and didn't commit the offences.
The child was interviewed by a family consultant and asked what she wanted to happen, to which she said she knew her father had hurt her mother but "I would be upset if I didn't get to see him".
Accordingly, Justice Margaret Cleary ordered in January that monthly visits at a supervised centre start, building up to fortnightly visits.
She praised the father for his "positive conduct... stability and lawfulness" in prison and noted that he intended to apply to have his conviction acquitted.
He has not filed an appeal more than two years later.
She admonished Ms Tindall for "avoiding time between the child and the father for her own reasons, which do not relate entirely to the child".
"The child is entitled to come to her own judgement about the father," she said.
Judgements issued throughout the eight-year dispute show the court's tendency to side with Mr Saldo.
Initially, child psychologist Dr R said he thought the mother was was making up the allegations, evidenced in her "disproportionate distress" and calculated manner.
An academic expert gave evidence that the mother, like many domestic violence victims, may have been acting in ways that seem irrational to reasonable people because of the abuse suffered.
When Mr Saldo pleaded guilty, Dr R issued a mea culpa, saying he had never been more wrong in his 20 years of report writing.
Former Australian of the Year and domestic violence survivor Rosie Batty, whose son was murdered by his father during a contact visit, told Fairfax Media she intends to turn her focus to the Family Court this year.
During a Senate inquiry last year, she singled it out as her "biggest area of concern", saying violent parents were too often being granted access to kids.
"There is a total disregard or a total ignorance of family violence being an issue," she told the inquiry. "You're viewed in court as likely to be lying to manipulate the system."
In a feature on the Family Court published in the Monthly in November, reporter Jess Hill found that judges were often deciding that access to an abusive parent was better than no access at all and that a parent supposedly 'alienating' a child from an abusive parent was possibly a greater threat.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-court-judgement-father-who-bashed-partner-and-threatened-child-granted-access-20160401-gnw5ne.html
Family Court judgement: Father who bashed partner and threatened child granted access
Date April 3, 2016
Rachel Olding Reporter
A man who bashed his partner and held a samurai sword to his daughter's chest has been granted access to the nine-year-old following his release from jail.
The long-running dispute in the Family Court has incensed anti-violence advocates, who say the court still has a poor understanding of domestic violence and is too often granting access when there has been a history of violence.
It comes amid calls to nationalise the recommendations from Victoria's landmark Royal Commission into Family Violence report released during the week.
It recommended an overhaul of the entire court system, including the creation of specialist family violence courts.
A photograph showing the injuries inflicted upon a domestic abuse survivor who was later told that the man who bashed her should be allowed to visit their daughter.
Given the pseudonyms Ms Tindall and Mr Saldo, the couple from Sydney have been bitterly fighting over parenting orders since their relationship ended in 2008.
The court had ordered weekly paternal visits but, in August 2010, Ms Tindall suddenly stopped dropping the child at meetings because she had given evidence against Mr Saldo in his criminal trial for bashing her, tying her to a chair and holding a sword at the child in their Sydney home in 2007.
Graphic photographs tendered in the District Court showed bruising sustained by Ms Tindall, 34, when her then partner repeatedly punched her because he believed she had tried to cheat on him.
He pleaded guilty during the trial and was sentenced to at least two-and-a-half years prison.
Ms Tindall was convicted in 2013 of 20 breaches of the parenting orders because Justice Stewart Austin believed the criminal trial didn't constitute "a change in the family dynamic" that would warrant her halting weekly visits.
"The father's decision to publicly admit his past violent behaviour changed nothing about the history of the parties' relationship," he said, in a judgement that was later overturned by the Full Court.
After being released on parole in 2014, Mr Saldo, 38, applied to have his regular visits reinstated.
He expressed no remorse, saying he was pressured into pleading guilty and didn't commit the offences.
The child was interviewed by a family consultant and asked what she wanted to happen, to which she said she knew her father had hurt her mother but "I would be upset if I didn't get to see him".
Accordingly, Justice Margaret Cleary ordered in January that monthly visits at a supervised centre start, building up to fortnightly visits.
She praised the father for his "positive conduct... stability and lawfulness" in prison and noted that he intended to apply to have his conviction acquitted.
He has not filed an appeal more than two years later.
She admonished Ms Tindall for "avoiding time between the child and the father for her own reasons, which do not relate entirely to the child".
"The child is entitled to come to her own judgement about the father," she said.
Judgements issued throughout the eight-year dispute show the court's tendency to side with Mr Saldo.
Initially, child psychologist Dr R said he thought the mother was was making up the allegations, evidenced in her "disproportionate distress" and calculated manner.
An academic expert gave evidence that the mother, like many domestic violence victims, may have been acting in ways that seem irrational to reasonable people because of the abuse suffered.
When Mr Saldo pleaded guilty, Dr R issued a mea culpa, saying he had never been more wrong in his 20 years of report writing.
Former Australian of the Year and domestic violence survivor Rosie Batty, whose son was murdered by his father during a contact visit, told Fairfax Media she intends to turn her focus to the Family Court this year.
During a Senate inquiry last year, she singled it out as her "biggest area of concern", saying violent parents were too often being granted access to kids.
"There is a total disregard or a total ignorance of family violence being an issue," she told the inquiry. "You're viewed in court as likely to be lying to manipulate the system."
In a feature on the Family Court published in the Monthly in November, reporter Jess Hill found that judges were often deciding that access to an abusive parent was better than no access at all and that a parent supposedly 'alienating' a child from an abusive parent was possibly a greater threat.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Appeals Court: Give custody of special needs child back to mom (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
Shame on Magistrate Eleanore Hilow and Juvenile Court Justice Judge Thomas F. O'Malley.
This is all too typical of the cronyism that exists between the pro-abuse fathers rights crowd and judicial corruption.
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/12/abuse_of_discretion_appeals_co.html
Abuse of discretion: Appeals court orders special-needs child returned to mother after improper decisions by Juvenile Court magistrate and judge
Cuyahoha County Juvenile Court Magistrate Eleanore Hilow and Judge Thomas O'Malley have now had 11 decisions related to custody cases overturned since 2011.
By Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer
on December 16, 2015 at 2:21 PM, updated December 16, 2015 at 3:24 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -– An appeals court ordered a special-needs child returned immediately to her mother, citing an abuse of discretion by a Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court magistrate and judge who supervises her.
The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals this week said Magistrate Eleanore Hilow awarded full custody to the child's father even though "there was no evidence to support her decision."
(Read the decision here or in the document viewer at the bottom of the story.)
The court said Hilow improperly considered evidence that was never introduced during a custody trial.
Her decision, the court found, was based on her review of reports not in evidence and the unsworn statements of the father to whom she awarded custody.
Juvenile Court Judge Thomas F. O'Malley, who is supposed to review Hilow's decisions independently, failed to do so numerous times during the case, according to the opinion authored by Judge Kathleen Ann Keough.
O'Malley approved Hilow's decisions without reviewing transcripts of hearings. He also let stand her decision to immediately jail the child's mother, Jennifer Rocks, on multiple occasions for contempt of court -- despite the fact a magistrate doesn't have the power to do so without a judge's approval, according to the opinion.
It was after one of those instances, in 2013, that the child's father asked for custody. He argued that the mother was in jail and couldn't care for her. Hilow later awarded him full custody.
The father, who was not represented by an attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.
"This woman has destroyed me mentally, physically and emotionally," said Rocks, who fought for two years to regain custody of her daughter who has epilepsy.
Rocks said Thursday that her daughter is now back with her, and for that she's grateful.
John V. Heutsche, who represents Rocks, told the appellate court that "in the more than 40 years this practitioner has been licensed and engaged in family law, he has never witnessed such a gross miscarriage of justice or such an abuse by a magistrate office or lack of oversight by a judicial officer."
He likened O'Malley's behavior to that of an "absentee landlord" in a November Plain Dealer story that chronicled numerous complaints and a higher-than-normal number of custody cases -– nine since 2011 -- stemming from Hilow's courtroom later overturned by the appeals court. Counting this week's case, the number of overturned cases is now 11.
Through a court spokeswoman, Hilow and O'Malley have said it is improper to comment on cases before the court.
Multiple attorneys told the Plain Dealer that O'Malley rarely agreed with objections to Hilow's decisions.
But things may have changed since that November story.
In one high-profile case involving an infant removed from her mother, who used marijuana tea during pregnancy, O'Malley ordered the baby returned home.
In the five weeks since November, he's twice sustained, or agreed, with objections her decisions.
This is all too typical of the cronyism that exists between the pro-abuse fathers rights crowd and judicial corruption.
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/12/abuse_of_discretion_appeals_co.html
Abuse of discretion: Appeals court orders special-needs child returned to mother after improper decisions by Juvenile Court magistrate and judge
Cuyahoha County Juvenile Court Magistrate Eleanore Hilow and Judge Thomas O'Malley have now had 11 decisions related to custody cases overturned since 2011.
By Rachel Dissell, The Plain Dealer
on December 16, 2015 at 2:21 PM, updated December 16, 2015 at 3:24 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -– An appeals court ordered a special-needs child returned immediately to her mother, citing an abuse of discretion by a Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court magistrate and judge who supervises her.
The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals this week said Magistrate Eleanore Hilow awarded full custody to the child's father even though "there was no evidence to support her decision."
(Read the decision here or in the document viewer at the bottom of the story.)
The court said Hilow improperly considered evidence that was never introduced during a custody trial.
Her decision, the court found, was based on her review of reports not in evidence and the unsworn statements of the father to whom she awarded custody.
Juvenile Court Judge Thomas F. O'Malley, who is supposed to review Hilow's decisions independently, failed to do so numerous times during the case, according to the opinion authored by Judge Kathleen Ann Keough.
O'Malley approved Hilow's decisions without reviewing transcripts of hearings. He also let stand her decision to immediately jail the child's mother, Jennifer Rocks, on multiple occasions for contempt of court -- despite the fact a magistrate doesn't have the power to do so without a judge's approval, according to the opinion.
It was after one of those instances, in 2013, that the child's father asked for custody. He argued that the mother was in jail and couldn't care for her. Hilow later awarded him full custody.
The father, who was not represented by an attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.
"This woman has destroyed me mentally, physically and emotionally," said Rocks, who fought for two years to regain custody of her daughter who has epilepsy.
Rocks said Thursday that her daughter is now back with her, and for that she's grateful.
John V. Heutsche, who represents Rocks, told the appellate court that "in the more than 40 years this practitioner has been licensed and engaged in family law, he has never witnessed such a gross miscarriage of justice or such an abuse by a magistrate office or lack of oversight by a judicial officer."
He likened O'Malley's behavior to that of an "absentee landlord" in a November Plain Dealer story that chronicled numerous complaints and a higher-than-normal number of custody cases -– nine since 2011 -- stemming from Hilow's courtroom later overturned by the appeals court. Counting this week's case, the number of overturned cases is now 11.
Through a court spokeswoman, Hilow and O'Malley have said it is improper to comment on cases before the court.
Multiple attorneys told the Plain Dealer that O'Malley rarely agreed with objections to Hilow's decisions.
But things may have changed since that November story.
In one high-profile case involving an infant removed from her mother, who used marijuana tea during pregnancy, O'Malley ordered the baby returned home.
In the five weeks since November, he's twice sustained, or agreed, with objections her decisions.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Suffer the children: Trouble in the Family Court (Australia)
This is just a portion of a much longer article appearing in The Monthly, an Autralian publication. Highly recommended.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/november/1446296400/jess-hill/suffer-children
Suffer the children
Trouble in the Family Court
By Jess Hill
November 2015
When Erin saw the police lights flashing, she knew it was over. She steered the car to the side of the road, and turned to her two children. “OK guys, this is it,” she said. “We’ve done our best.”
Her teenaged daughter started to panic. “Fuck! Oh my god!” she cried. “I can’t do this. You can’t leave us!” She grabbed for the bottle of Panadol in the centre console, insisting she wanted to die. “No!” Erin said firmly. “Settle, just settle.”
As the police officer approached with a warrant, Erin got out of her car. She asked for time to talk to her two children, and promised she’d follow him to the station. Back in the car, Erin tried to remain calm. “I am so sorry I have put you through all of this. This is not the life I wanted for you. Always remember how much I love you.”
“What’s going to happen to us?” her 10-year-old son cried. “I don’t know,” Erin replied. “You just need to tell the truth.”
By the time the police caught up with them, Erin had been on the run with her children for nine months. She was now confronting a reality she’d been avoiding for years.
Since their children were born, and ever since he’d first held a knife to her throat, Erin had tried to manage her husband’s abuse. In 2012, however, a warning from her GP had broken through her denial. In front of their screaming kids, John had throttled Erin until her eyes rolled back in her head. “If you don’t leave,” her GP warned, “you’re as bad as he is.”
Erin did leave, and took the children to live with her parents interstate. Soon after, the Family Court granted John regular access to his kids. For the next year, Erin weighed her responsibility to her children, who were terrified of their father, against the risks of disobeying Family Court orders. There was a further complication: Erin had consented to the orders granting John fortnightly access – under pressure from her lawyer, she says, who advised that if she didn’t compromise, John could end up with sole custody.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/november/1446296400/jess-hill/suffer-children
Suffer the children
Trouble in the Family Court
By Jess Hill
November 2015
When Erin saw the police lights flashing, she knew it was over. She steered the car to the side of the road, and turned to her two children. “OK guys, this is it,” she said. “We’ve done our best.”
Her teenaged daughter started to panic. “Fuck! Oh my god!” she cried. “I can’t do this. You can’t leave us!” She grabbed for the bottle of Panadol in the centre console, insisting she wanted to die. “No!” Erin said firmly. “Settle, just settle.”
As the police officer approached with a warrant, Erin got out of her car. She asked for time to talk to her two children, and promised she’d follow him to the station. Back in the car, Erin tried to remain calm. “I am so sorry I have put you through all of this. This is not the life I wanted for you. Always remember how much I love you.”
“What’s going to happen to us?” her 10-year-old son cried. “I don’t know,” Erin replied. “You just need to tell the truth.”
By the time the police caught up with them, Erin had been on the run with her children for nine months. She was now confronting a reality she’d been avoiding for years.
Since their children were born, and ever since he’d first held a knife to her throat, Erin had tried to manage her husband’s abuse. In 2012, however, a warning from her GP had broken through her denial. In front of their screaming kids, John had throttled Erin until her eyes rolled back in her head. “If you don’t leave,” her GP warned, “you’re as bad as he is.”
Erin did leave, and took the children to live with her parents interstate. Soon after, the Family Court granted John regular access to his kids. For the next year, Erin weighed her responsibility to her children, who were terrified of their father, against the risks of disobeying Family Court orders. There was a further complication: Erin had consented to the orders granting John fortnightly access – under pressure from her lawyer, she says, who advised that if she didn’t compromise, John could end up with sole custody.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Court: County referee "grossly" mishandled child custody case (Livingston County, Michigan)
Fathers rights corruption in the courts.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/community/livingston-county/2015/09/26/referee-mishandled-custody-case/72984028/
Court: County referee ‘grossly’ mishandled custody case
Lisa Roose-Church, Livingston Daily 9:50 a.m. EDT September 29, 2015
A Michigan Court of Appeals ruling says a Livingston County attorney referee violated a mother’s due-process rights in a custody hearing and committed numerous legal errors.
In its opinion, the court found that Friend of the Court referee Lori Marran “grossly” mishandled the custody case. As a result, the court vacated Marran’s order giving physical custody of the couple’s child to the father.
“The manner in which the change of custody was ordered was grossly improper,” the court added. “The order is vacated and the child shall be returned to the primary physical custody of the mother.”
Attorney Christine M. Heckler, who represents the father, said the appeals court "made obvious errors" in its ruling and as a result unfairly impeached "the character of a well-respected judge." In particular, she said, the “most serious criticisms raised in the decision … are verifiably untrue.”
Heckler said the appeals court noted that Judge David Reader added word “interim” to an order entered on March 4. However, she said that is untrue because the March 4 order “very clearly” indicated it was an “interim” order and was not added later as the appeals court noted.
She also noted that the judge personally signed the order, not the referee.
“I am troubled that the COA could make such an obvious error, especially when impeaching the character of a well-respected Judge,” Heckler said Tuesday.
“Furthermore, these parties had been before this judge prior to the March 4, 2015, order, so to state that he ‘knew nothing about the case’ is factually inaccurate and unfair,” Heckler added.
The appeals court found the referee failed to find the father had proper cause for his request to change custody and Marran failed to give the mother time to appeal her decision by rubber-stamping Reader’s name on the court order, which put the custody change into immediate effect.
The appeals court also found that the practice of allowing a referee to stamp the judge’s name on an order is improper because the referee “had no authority to issue an immediately effective order changing custody, and the judge cannot give carte blanche permission” for the referee to sign the judge’s name without ever seeing the order or being knowledgeable about the case.
The appeals court noted that the judge did later review the case and recognized that a full hearing needed to occur. However, the court said, the judge did not vacate Marran’s improper order, but rather ordered that a hearing “be continued.” Despite that order, a hearing was not completed.
According to court documents, a court order was entered Nov. 4, 2010, granting the mother sole legal and physical custody of the couple’s child. In December that year, the father sought to have it changed to joint legal and physical custody, but the motion was dismissed when the pair came to an agreement in 2011 that granted physical custody to the mother but joint legal custody to both parents.
In April 2014, the father again filed a motion to change custody when his 5-year-old child was accidentally locked out of the mother’s home while she was sleeping. He also alleged the child’s mother had a substance abuse problem, but Child Protective Services was unable to substantiate that claim and a CPS social worker later testified that the mother’s home was safe and the lock-out incident was accidental.
When the parties convened in March for a “parenting time hearing,” Marran entered an order transferring primary custody to the father. However, the appeals court vacated that order as a “result of numerous legal errors.”
The first errors, the court noted, violated the mother’s due-process rights. Specifically, the court found that Marran granted the change without proper motion since the father’s initial motion had been denied and not appealed.
The appeals court went on to say Marran took testimony from the family’s therapist, who repeated the father’s allegations, but the referee failed to allow the mother’s attorney to cross-examine the therapist and did not allow the mother to present any witnesses.
“The referee made several substantive errors in the course of making her ruling, including what appears to be a complete disregard of the substantive law governing a court’s decision when considering a change of custody,” the appeals court wrote in its decision released this month.
Reporter's note: This story has been updated to add comments from the father's attorney, who was not available at the initial time of writing.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/community/livingston-county/2015/09/26/referee-mishandled-custody-case/72984028/
Court: County referee ‘grossly’ mishandled custody case
Lisa Roose-Church, Livingston Daily 9:50 a.m. EDT September 29, 2015
A Michigan Court of Appeals ruling says a Livingston County attorney referee violated a mother’s due-process rights in a custody hearing and committed numerous legal errors.
In its opinion, the court found that Friend of the Court referee Lori Marran “grossly” mishandled the custody case. As a result, the court vacated Marran’s order giving physical custody of the couple’s child to the father.
“The manner in which the change of custody was ordered was grossly improper,” the court added. “The order is vacated and the child shall be returned to the primary physical custody of the mother.”
Attorney Christine M. Heckler, who represents the father, said the appeals court "made obvious errors" in its ruling and as a result unfairly impeached "the character of a well-respected judge." In particular, she said, the “most serious criticisms raised in the decision … are verifiably untrue.”
Heckler said the appeals court noted that Judge David Reader added word “interim” to an order entered on March 4. However, she said that is untrue because the March 4 order “very clearly” indicated it was an “interim” order and was not added later as the appeals court noted.
She also noted that the judge personally signed the order, not the referee.
“I am troubled that the COA could make such an obvious error, especially when impeaching the character of a well-respected Judge,” Heckler said Tuesday.
“Furthermore, these parties had been before this judge prior to the March 4, 2015, order, so to state that he ‘knew nothing about the case’ is factually inaccurate and unfair,” Heckler added.
The appeals court found the referee failed to find the father had proper cause for his request to change custody and Marran failed to give the mother time to appeal her decision by rubber-stamping Reader’s name on the court order, which put the custody change into immediate effect.
The appeals court also found that the practice of allowing a referee to stamp the judge’s name on an order is improper because the referee “had no authority to issue an immediately effective order changing custody, and the judge cannot give carte blanche permission” for the referee to sign the judge’s name without ever seeing the order or being knowledgeable about the case.
The appeals court noted that the judge did later review the case and recognized that a full hearing needed to occur. However, the court said, the judge did not vacate Marran’s improper order, but rather ordered that a hearing “be continued.” Despite that order, a hearing was not completed.
According to court documents, a court order was entered Nov. 4, 2010, granting the mother sole legal and physical custody of the couple’s child. In December that year, the father sought to have it changed to joint legal and physical custody, but the motion was dismissed when the pair came to an agreement in 2011 that granted physical custody to the mother but joint legal custody to both parents.
In April 2014, the father again filed a motion to change custody when his 5-year-old child was accidentally locked out of the mother’s home while she was sleeping. He also alleged the child’s mother had a substance abuse problem, but Child Protective Services was unable to substantiate that claim and a CPS social worker later testified that the mother’s home was safe and the lock-out incident was accidental.
When the parties convened in March for a “parenting time hearing,” Marran entered an order transferring primary custody to the father. However, the appeals court vacated that order as a “result of numerous legal errors.”
The first errors, the court noted, violated the mother’s due-process rights. Specifically, the court found that Marran granted the change without proper motion since the father’s initial motion had been denied and not appealed.
The appeals court went on to say Marran took testimony from the family’s therapist, who repeated the father’s allegations, but the referee failed to allow the mother’s attorney to cross-examine the therapist and did not allow the mother to present any witnesses.
“The referee made several substantive errors in the course of making her ruling, including what appears to be a complete disregard of the substantive law governing a court’s decision when considering a change of custody,” the appeals court wrote in its decision released this month.
Reporter's note: This story has been updated to add comments from the father's attorney, who was not available at the initial time of writing.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Custodial dad suspended from police job interfering with abuse investigation involving son; threatens non-custodial mom with kidnapping charge (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
This case just reeks of backroom deal making and corruption. Because he is a well-connected cop, the abuse allegations against him are perpetually "unfounded." He gets physical custody. Threatens the protective mother with kidnapping charges though she communicated to him the location of their son. He barges into CPS, manhandles the kid out of an interview with an abuse investigator, and then the authorities CONTINUE to force the boy to live his father for another three months before suspending him from his job.
Dad is identified as STEPHEN C. KRUM.
Typical of the fathers rights corruption that infects the whole judicial system.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/09/harrisburg_police_officer_susp_3.html
Harrisburg police suspend officer accused of obstructing child abuse investigation
Dauphin County investigators say Harrisburg Police Officer Stephen Krum barged into a room inside this Children &Youth Services building and forcibly removed a boy being interviewed.
The District Attorney's office later charged Krum, 31, with felony obstruction of a child abuse investigation.
By Christine Vendel on September 10, 2015 at 7:41 AM, updated September 10, 2015 at 11:15 AM
HARRISBURG - The city of Harrisburg has suspended a police officer who authorities say barged into the Dauphin County Children Youth Services building and removed his son who was being interviewed as a possible child abuse victim.
Officer Stephen C. Krum has been charged by the Dauphin County district attorney's office with felony obstruction of a child abuse investigation.
Krum showed his police ID and badge to a security guard at the building who asked if he had an appointment, court records state.
"This is my access and all the appointment I need," he told the guard, according to court records. The six-year veteran, who earns $63,198 annually, has been on paid leave since Aug. 19, when the charge was filed. His next court date is set for Oct. 2.
The incident occurred about 4 p.m. May 14 at the Dauphin County CYS facility at 1001 N. Sixth St. Krum and the boy's mother are divorced, said Krum's attorney, Brian Perry. Krum has primary physical custody of the boy, who has special needs, Perry said.
A county detective investigated the incident. Court records gave this account:
The boy reportedly called his mother after school but before getting on the school bus saying he did not want to go to his father's house. The boy reportedly said he was afraid of his father and wanted to go to CYS to talk to somebody.
The mother responded to the school, picked up her son and drove him to the CYS facility. She called Krum from the facility and left a message letting him know where the boy was.
Krum reportedly called back and threatened to have his ex-wife arrested for kidnapping. Krum showed up at the facility 10 minutes later.
Krum walked past a security guard and bypassed the metal detector initially, but then agreed to go through the detector. The guard then asked about his appointment and he pulled his police badge.
Krum eventually went into a playroom, where the boy was being interviewed by a caseworker and demanded the boy leave with him.
A supervisor confronted Krum and asked him to go back to the waiting room, but he refused. He pushed past the supervisor, grabbed his son by the arm and dragged him to the door, actions that were captured on security footage.
Krum talked with his son briefly, then grabbed him "in a sort of a bear hug," and took him out of the building as the boy "appears to be resisting."
The boy told a screener at CYS that "he was fearful of his father and did not want to go home." He reportedly asked staff members several times to "please don't make him go with him."
Perry said the visit to CYS was the latest in a string of abuse allegations filed by the mother against Krum in Dauphin and Lebanon counties. All of the allegations have been unfounded, Perry said.
Perry noted that the boy was allowed to remain in Krum's home during the three months following the incident, until the criminal charge was filed.
"I think that speaks volumes about the strength of the [abuse] case against Steve," he said. "He found out the boy's mother took him to CYS again and he said, 'No. We're not doing this. You're coming with me.'
"Should he have handled himself differently that day? The answer is yes," Perry said. "But he reacted as most fathers would have."
Assistant District Attorney Sean McCormack disagreed and said he believed most parents would have allowed the interview to finish.
"Justified or not, the system has to work," McCormack said. "Other parents in similar situations have shown much more restraint."
McCormack said his office would file a similar charge against anyone who committed the same offense.
"The allegation here is that he forcibly removed a child from an interview," he said. "That's not something we can condone."
Krum has not been allowed to contact his son since the charge was filed, Perry said.
Dad is identified as STEPHEN C. KRUM.
Typical of the fathers rights corruption that infects the whole judicial system.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/09/harrisburg_police_officer_susp_3.html
Harrisburg police suspend officer accused of obstructing child abuse investigation
Dauphin County investigators say Harrisburg Police Officer Stephen Krum barged into a room inside this Children &Youth Services building and forcibly removed a boy being interviewed.
The District Attorney's office later charged Krum, 31, with felony obstruction of a child abuse investigation.
By Christine Vendel on September 10, 2015 at 7:41 AM, updated September 10, 2015 at 11:15 AM
HARRISBURG - The city of Harrisburg has suspended a police officer who authorities say barged into the Dauphin County Children Youth Services building and removed his son who was being interviewed as a possible child abuse victim.
Officer Stephen C. Krum has been charged by the Dauphin County district attorney's office with felony obstruction of a child abuse investigation.
Krum showed his police ID and badge to a security guard at the building who asked if he had an appointment, court records state.
"This is my access and all the appointment I need," he told the guard, according to court records. The six-year veteran, who earns $63,198 annually, has been on paid leave since Aug. 19, when the charge was filed. His next court date is set for Oct. 2.
The incident occurred about 4 p.m. May 14 at the Dauphin County CYS facility at 1001 N. Sixth St. Krum and the boy's mother are divorced, said Krum's attorney, Brian Perry. Krum has primary physical custody of the boy, who has special needs, Perry said.
A county detective investigated the incident. Court records gave this account:
The boy reportedly called his mother after school but before getting on the school bus saying he did not want to go to his father's house. The boy reportedly said he was afraid of his father and wanted to go to CYS to talk to somebody.
The mother responded to the school, picked up her son and drove him to the CYS facility. She called Krum from the facility and left a message letting him know where the boy was.
Krum reportedly called back and threatened to have his ex-wife arrested for kidnapping. Krum showed up at the facility 10 minutes later.
Krum walked past a security guard and bypassed the metal detector initially, but then agreed to go through the detector. The guard then asked about his appointment and he pulled his police badge.
Krum eventually went into a playroom, where the boy was being interviewed by a caseworker and demanded the boy leave with him.
A supervisor confronted Krum and asked him to go back to the waiting room, but he refused. He pushed past the supervisor, grabbed his son by the arm and dragged him to the door, actions that were captured on security footage.
Krum talked with his son briefly, then grabbed him "in a sort of a bear hug," and took him out of the building as the boy "appears to be resisting."
The boy told a screener at CYS that "he was fearful of his father and did not want to go home." He reportedly asked staff members several times to "please don't make him go with him."
Perry said the visit to CYS was the latest in a string of abuse allegations filed by the mother against Krum in Dauphin and Lebanon counties. All of the allegations have been unfounded, Perry said.
Perry noted that the boy was allowed to remain in Krum's home during the three months following the incident, until the criminal charge was filed.
"I think that speaks volumes about the strength of the [abuse] case against Steve," he said. "He found out the boy's mother took him to CYS again and he said, 'No. We're not doing this. You're coming with me.'
"Should he have handled himself differently that day? The answer is yes," Perry said. "But he reacted as most fathers would have."
Assistant District Attorney Sean McCormack disagreed and said he believed most parents would have allowed the interview to finish.
"Justified or not, the system has to work," McCormack said. "Other parents in similar situations have shown much more restraint."
McCormack said his office would file a similar charge against anyone who committed the same offense.
"The allegation here is that he forcibly removed a child from an interview," he said. "That's not something we can condone."
Krum has not been allowed to contact his son since the charge was filed, Perry said.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Family Court in crisis: Children need more say in custody disputes (Australia)
This and similar articles have been published for decades now. Yet very little changes.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/family-court-in-crisis-child-protection-advocates-call-for-children-to-have-more-say-in-custody-disputes/story-fni0cx12-1227475426755
Family Court in crisis: Child protection advocates call for children to have more say in custody disputes
August 8, 2015 10:00am
LIA HARRIS The Sunday Telegraph
IT IS the claims by a teenage girl that highlights the dilemma faced by the Family Court when deciding who should get custody of the children: “Why am I not allowed to help decide what happens to me?”
The heartbreaking allegations contained in a letter from the 14-year-old who has been on the run with her brother and mother for the past nine months after her parents were awarded joint custody, tells how she is terrified of her allegedly abusive father and fears she might be “the next Luke Batty”.
After alleging how her father assaulted her brother and held a knife to her mother’s throat, she begs: “At what point do I become old enough to have a voice? At what point will those with the power choose to let me be heard? The courts won’t hear me. How is this fair? I want to be heard, to be understood and acknowledged.”
Just hours after the letter was written last week, police finally caught up with the trio and the mother was arrested only days before they planned to flee the country.
The letter comes as leading child protection and domestic violence advocates call for Family Court procedures to be overhauled to allow children caught up in family disputes to have more of a say in what happens to them.
They claim that in most cases the wishes of the children are not being taken into account by judges.
Instead, children are only appointed an independent children’s lawyer by Legal Aid when the case is considered to involve a high amount of conflict, or are interviewed by a court reporter who presents a family report to the court.
Victims of Crime Assistance League chief executive Robyn Cotterell-Jones said the children were often misrepresented or not heard at all during custody battles.
Robyn Cotterell-Jones, of Victims of Crime Assistance League of NSW, said children don’t get a big say when it comes to custody issues.
Although many children were appointed an independent children’s lawyer, she said they often spent very little time with the child and did not reflect their views in court.
“They don’t get much of a say at all and when they do say something, they don’t get heard,” Ms Cotterell-Jones said.
“There are all these kids out there being put at risk because the courts believe the mother is just being vindictive. The independent children’s lawyers often don’t even speak to the children or don’t represent their views accurately.
“They’re prioritising access to the father over the safety of the children and the system needs to change.”
Bravehearts founder and CEO Hetty Johnston said her not-for-profit child protection organisation was “aware of many instances where deficiencies in the Family Court practices, policies and procedures have resulted in children being assaulted and placed at serious risk of sexual harm”.
As a result, Bravehearts recently funded an inquiry called Abbey’s Project to uncover and reflect the experiences, testimony and outcomes for families and other stakeholders in their dealings with the Family Court.
“Every week in Australia, the Family Court orders children into contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who are dangerous, toxic and abusive because the Family Court does not have the powers, expertise and resources to competently investigate allegations of child abuse,” Ms Johnston said.
“Whether it’s child sexual assault, domestic violence, or both, the fact is there is no public accountability or transparency around matters dealt with by the Family Court. That is a combination that is always dangerous in any situation and in any organisation, including our judicial system.
“We are seeing far too many poor outcomes due to a combination of failures that culminate at the exit door of the Family Court.
“Too often children are not being heard and their testimonies disregarded or disbelieved.”
Domestic Violence NSW CEO Moo Baulch agreed children were not being heard in the Family Court.
“Children’s voices are not being heard and mothers are being portrayed as coercing children into making statements or victim blaming,” Ms Baulch said.
“It puts children at risk and it puts women at risk.
“If children are saying ‘I don’t want to spend time with him’, surely we should be listening to that.” Sydney University Law School professor Judith Cashmore, who in 2009 researched and wrote a paper about children’s involvement in the Family Court, said most children wanted more of a say in custody matters.
Of the 47 children involved in Family Court matters interviewed for the study, 90 per cent stated they “should be involved” in the case and “most of the children who expressed strong and unqualified views were involved in contested matters”.
Prof Cashmore said the Family Court often took the view that children could be coerced by one parent and therefore their opinions could not be taken seriously.
“That’s a strong perception of the process ... But being able to see through that and understand if children are making those strong statements, then I think they should be taken very seriously,” Prof Cashmore said.
“We do need to listen more carefully and provide better mechanisms for kids who’ve been through it all and are not being heard (by the court).”
A Family Court spokeswoman said children were appointed independent lawyers in disputes involving a high level of conflict, including allegations of abuse, but were rarely allowed to address the court directly.
“(The lawyer) represents a child’s best interests and ensures that that is the focus of any decisions about parenting arrangements,” she said.
THE LETTER
The teenage girl wrote a letter to The Sunday Telegraph detailing the horrific abuse the family allegedly suffered at the hands of her father and her fear of being forced to live with him.
My name is X,
And I am scared of my dad. I have seen him in a rage throw my brother across the room. He has held a knife to my mother’s throat telling her how easy it would be to cut it … and the court has given me to him.
I explained to the court ordered evaluation all the things he has done that scare me and how he told us he killed the family animals after we asked for them back. He has done some things that are like Luke Batty’s dad which have been reported to DoCs… And still the court has given me to him.
I have tried to tell all the legal people involved how scared he makes me but I am too young for anyone to listen yet I am 14. Why am I not allowed to help decide what happens to me? I feel like I am screaming in a sound proof room because my voice has been stolen from me.
I feel like a refugee in my own country because the courts and the government have given me to him. Am I a slave? The court say my dad now owns me and the Police can drag me wherever they want.
At what point do I become old enough to have a voice? At what point will those with the power choose to let me be heard? The courts won’t hear me. How is this fair? I want to be heard, to be understood and acknowledged.
I hope that somewhere in the cosmos is a place where I am valued and safe. I don’t want to be the next Luke Batty.
I want to be protected from my dad. I need someone to hear my voice and understand that all I want is a life without fear. The only person to listen to me is my mum. She believes me when I tell her I am scared and keeps me safe but they will jail her for listening to me.
The only people who can hear me are you as you read this appeal. The only way you can help me is to share this with your friends and sign the petition for action — so please share this, print the poster and stick it up everywhere to create awareness.
Post it on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. It’s time for awareness and change. Attach it to emails and send it to anyone you think of who can help … to help me and my brother find a voice, the voice that has been stolen from us.
We were not asked to be part of any hearing or give our opinions and concerns to any lawyer. Help me have a voice to have my views and issues recognised by the courts, the Police and my dad.
Encourage all those with big voices to look at what the court have stopped being entered as evidence by my dad and his team of barristers as he tries to take possession of me. Please help me to get as many signatures as possible.
I am scared and I need your help.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/family-court-in-crisis-child-protection-advocates-call-for-children-to-have-more-say-in-custody-disputes/story-fni0cx12-1227475426755
Family Court in crisis: Child protection advocates call for children to have more say in custody disputes
August 8, 2015 10:00am
LIA HARRIS The Sunday Telegraph
IT IS the claims by a teenage girl that highlights the dilemma faced by the Family Court when deciding who should get custody of the children: “Why am I not allowed to help decide what happens to me?”
The heartbreaking allegations contained in a letter from the 14-year-old who has been on the run with her brother and mother for the past nine months after her parents were awarded joint custody, tells how she is terrified of her allegedly abusive father and fears she might be “the next Luke Batty”.
After alleging how her father assaulted her brother and held a knife to her mother’s throat, she begs: “At what point do I become old enough to have a voice? At what point will those with the power choose to let me be heard? The courts won’t hear me. How is this fair? I want to be heard, to be understood and acknowledged.”
Just hours after the letter was written last week, police finally caught up with the trio and the mother was arrested only days before they planned to flee the country.
The letter comes as leading child protection and domestic violence advocates call for Family Court procedures to be overhauled to allow children caught up in family disputes to have more of a say in what happens to them.
They claim that in most cases the wishes of the children are not being taken into account by judges.
Instead, children are only appointed an independent children’s lawyer by Legal Aid when the case is considered to involve a high amount of conflict, or are interviewed by a court reporter who presents a family report to the court.
Victims of Crime Assistance League chief executive Robyn Cotterell-Jones said the children were often misrepresented or not heard at all during custody battles.
Robyn Cotterell-Jones, of Victims of Crime Assistance League of NSW, said children don’t get a big say when it comes to custody issues.
Although many children were appointed an independent children’s lawyer, she said they often spent very little time with the child and did not reflect their views in court.
“They don’t get much of a say at all and when they do say something, they don’t get heard,” Ms Cotterell-Jones said.
“There are all these kids out there being put at risk because the courts believe the mother is just being vindictive. The independent children’s lawyers often don’t even speak to the children or don’t represent their views accurately.
“They’re prioritising access to the father over the safety of the children and the system needs to change.”
Bravehearts founder and CEO Hetty Johnston said her not-for-profit child protection organisation was “aware of many instances where deficiencies in the Family Court practices, policies and procedures have resulted in children being assaulted and placed at serious risk of sexual harm”.
As a result, Bravehearts recently funded an inquiry called Abbey’s Project to uncover and reflect the experiences, testimony and outcomes for families and other stakeholders in their dealings with the Family Court.
“Every week in Australia, the Family Court orders children into contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who are dangerous, toxic and abusive because the Family Court does not have the powers, expertise and resources to competently investigate allegations of child abuse,” Ms Johnston said.
“Whether it’s child sexual assault, domestic violence, or both, the fact is there is no public accountability or transparency around matters dealt with by the Family Court. That is a combination that is always dangerous in any situation and in any organisation, including our judicial system.
“We are seeing far too many poor outcomes due to a combination of failures that culminate at the exit door of the Family Court.
“Too often children are not being heard and their testimonies disregarded or disbelieved.”
Domestic Violence NSW CEO Moo Baulch agreed children were not being heard in the Family Court.
“Children’s voices are not being heard and mothers are being portrayed as coercing children into making statements or victim blaming,” Ms Baulch said.
“It puts children at risk and it puts women at risk.
“If children are saying ‘I don’t want to spend time with him’, surely we should be listening to that.” Sydney University Law School professor Judith Cashmore, who in 2009 researched and wrote a paper about children’s involvement in the Family Court, said most children wanted more of a say in custody matters.
Of the 47 children involved in Family Court matters interviewed for the study, 90 per cent stated they “should be involved” in the case and “most of the children who expressed strong and unqualified views were involved in contested matters”.
Prof Cashmore said the Family Court often took the view that children could be coerced by one parent and therefore their opinions could not be taken seriously.
“That’s a strong perception of the process ... But being able to see through that and understand if children are making those strong statements, then I think they should be taken very seriously,” Prof Cashmore said.
“We do need to listen more carefully and provide better mechanisms for kids who’ve been through it all and are not being heard (by the court).”
A Family Court spokeswoman said children were appointed independent lawyers in disputes involving a high level of conflict, including allegations of abuse, but were rarely allowed to address the court directly.
“(The lawyer) represents a child’s best interests and ensures that that is the focus of any decisions about parenting arrangements,” she said.
THE LETTER
The teenage girl wrote a letter to The Sunday Telegraph detailing the horrific abuse the family allegedly suffered at the hands of her father and her fear of being forced to live with him.
My name is X,
And I am scared of my dad. I have seen him in a rage throw my brother across the room. He has held a knife to my mother’s throat telling her how easy it would be to cut it … and the court has given me to him.
I explained to the court ordered evaluation all the things he has done that scare me and how he told us he killed the family animals after we asked for them back. He has done some things that are like Luke Batty’s dad which have been reported to DoCs… And still the court has given me to him.
I have tried to tell all the legal people involved how scared he makes me but I am too young for anyone to listen yet I am 14. Why am I not allowed to help decide what happens to me? I feel like I am screaming in a sound proof room because my voice has been stolen from me.
I feel like a refugee in my own country because the courts and the government have given me to him. Am I a slave? The court say my dad now owns me and the Police can drag me wherever they want.
At what point do I become old enough to have a voice? At what point will those with the power choose to let me be heard? The courts won’t hear me. How is this fair? I want to be heard, to be understood and acknowledged.
I hope that somewhere in the cosmos is a place where I am valued and safe. I don’t want to be the next Luke Batty.
I want to be protected from my dad. I need someone to hear my voice and understand that all I want is a life without fear. The only person to listen to me is my mum. She believes me when I tell her I am scared and keeps me safe but they will jail her for listening to me.
The only people who can hear me are you as you read this appeal. The only way you can help me is to share this with your friends and sign the petition for action — so please share this, print the poster and stick it up everywhere to create awareness.
Post it on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. It’s time for awareness and change. Attach it to emails and send it to anyone you think of who can help … to help me and my brother find a voice, the voice that has been stolen from us.
We were not asked to be part of any hearing or give our opinions and concerns to any lawyer. Help me have a voice to have my views and issues recognised by the courts, the Police and my dad.
Encourage all those with big voices to look at what the court have stopped being entered as evidence by my dad and his team of barristers as he tries to take possession of me. Please help me to get as many signatures as possible.
I am scared and I need your help.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Separated moms worry about ongoing contact between children and abusive fathers (Ireland)
Which side are you on?
It's very nice to acknowledge that abusive men should be held accountable and that we should consider the children's best interests.
But notice that this position is seriously undermined by the study's emphasis on "promoting contact" between abusive fathers and children, and helping these assorted wife beaters and child molesters "realise their "fathering aspirations."
So when there's a conflict between these two positions, who loses out? I'm betting it's Mum and the kids.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0721/716128-abuse/
Separated mothers worried about ongoing contact between children and fathers
Tuesday 21 July 2015 16.06
Mothers who took part in the survey said they worried about the children's continuing exposure to verbal abuse More than two-thirds of separated mothers who had suffered domestic abuse said they worried about ongoing contact between their children and the absent father when interviewed for a study by a Trinity College Dublin academic.
They said they worried about the children's continuing exposure to the verbal abuse and denigration of the mother when contact was being arranged and at hand-over points and during contact.
The study's author, Dr Stephanie Holt, said it is critical to find ways to ensure that abusive men acknowledge and address the continued presence of domestic abuse and that they are held accountable for it.
The findings prompt Dr Holt to question whether contact with fathers should automatically be considered to be in such children's best interests.
She says the challenge is to promote contact in a way which delivers benefits to children while not jeopardising their safety or well-being.
The research also highlights a lack of support services for abusive men struggling to realise their fathering aspirations.
The research involved 219 mothers completing questionnaires about their 449 children and face-to-face interviews with 61 children, separated mothers and fathers and legal, health and social care professionals.
It's very nice to acknowledge that abusive men should be held accountable and that we should consider the children's best interests.
But notice that this position is seriously undermined by the study's emphasis on "promoting contact" between abusive fathers and children, and helping these assorted wife beaters and child molesters "realise their "fathering aspirations."
So when there's a conflict between these two positions, who loses out? I'm betting it's Mum and the kids.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0721/716128-abuse/
Separated mothers worried about ongoing contact between children and fathers
Tuesday 21 July 2015 16.06
Mothers who took part in the survey said they worried about the children's continuing exposure to verbal abuse More than two-thirds of separated mothers who had suffered domestic abuse said they worried about ongoing contact between their children and the absent father when interviewed for a study by a Trinity College Dublin academic.
They said they worried about the children's continuing exposure to the verbal abuse and denigration of the mother when contact was being arranged and at hand-over points and during contact.
The study's author, Dr Stephanie Holt, said it is critical to find ways to ensure that abusive men acknowledge and address the continued presence of domestic abuse and that they are held accountable for it.
The findings prompt Dr Holt to question whether contact with fathers should automatically be considered to be in such children's best interests.
She says the challenge is to promote contact in a way which delivers benefits to children while not jeopardising their safety or well-being.
The research also highlights a lack of support services for abusive men struggling to realise their fathering aspirations.
The research involved 219 mothers completing questionnaires about their 449 children and face-to-face interviews with 61 children, separated mothers and fathers and legal, health and social care professionals.
"Custody dispute" dad who threw 7-month-old baby off bridge to face judge (Middletown, Connecticut)
Dad is identified as TONY MORENO. The judge who allowed him to do this is Barry Pinkus.
http://www.rep-am.com/news/local/doc55ae4937b515b140041053.txt
Father charged with throwing baby off bridge faces a judge
Middletown man charged in the death of 7-month-old
MIDDLETOWN (AP) — A 21-year-old Middletown man accused of throwing his infant son off the Arrigoni Bridge and into the Connecticut River faces a judge to answer a murder charge.
Tony Moreno is scheduled to appear in Middlesex Superior Court Tuesday, charged in the death of 7-month-old Aaden Moreno.
Moreno has been held in a state Department of Correction medical unit under suicide watch since jumping off the Arrigoni Bridge in Middletown on July 5, shortly after the baby was thrown into the water.
The child's body was later found two days later in East Haddam, south of where his father jumped.
Police say Tony Moreno has admitted throwing his son off the bridge.
The boy's 19-year-old mother, Adrianne Oyola, was denied a restraining order last month amid a bitter custody dispute.
http://www.rep-am.com/news/local/doc55ae4937b515b140041053.txt
Father charged with throwing baby off bridge faces a judge
Middletown man charged in the death of 7-month-old
MIDDLETOWN (AP) — A 21-year-old Middletown man accused of throwing his infant son off the Arrigoni Bridge and into the Connecticut River faces a judge to answer a murder charge.
Tony Moreno is scheduled to appear in Middlesex Superior Court Tuesday, charged in the death of 7-month-old Aaden Moreno.
Moreno has been held in a state Department of Correction medical unit under suicide watch since jumping off the Arrigoni Bridge in Middletown on July 5, shortly after the baby was thrown into the water.
The child's body was later found two days later in East Haddam, south of where his father jumped.
Police say Tony Moreno has admitted throwing his son off the bridge.
The boy's 19-year-old mother, Adrianne Oyola, was denied a restraining order last month amid a bitter custody dispute.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Judge Barry C. Pinkus fails protective mom, so dad throws baby in the river and kills him (Middletown, Connecticut)
Judge Barry C. Pinkus is a condescending prick. And as far as I'm concerned, he's an accessory to murder.
Dad is identified as TONY MORENO.
Sadly reminiscent of the 2010 murder of 9-month-old Wyatt Garcia in California.
http://www.middletownpress.com/general-news/20150709/judge-in-middletown-rejected-no-contact-order-filed-by-aaden-morenos-mother-due-to-lack-of-imminent-harm
Judge in Middletown rejected no-contact order filed by Aaden Moreno’s mother due to lack of ‘imminent harm’
Joe Campbell, 43, protests outside the Middletown Superior Court Thursday morning, as Tony Moreno’s court-appointed public defender was appearing before Judge Gold. Campbell said he wants Judge Barry C. Pinkus held accountable for his ruling in the Aaden Moreno custody case. Brian Zahn — Middletown Press
By Brian Zahn, The Middletown Press Posted: 07/09/15, 12:03 PM EDT | Updated: 4 days ago MIDDLETOWN
Just seven days before Tony Moreno allegedly threw his infant into the Connecticut River, a judge rejected a no-contact order request against him for the 7-month-old and his mother Adrianna Oyola, citing a lack of “imminent harm,” court documents show.
Just before midnight Sunday, Moreno, 21, flung Aaden Moreno into the Connecticut River from where he stood on the Arrigoni Bridge, he admitted in a sworn statement, according to police.
He jumped minutes later while officers, alerted by a 911 call from a family member, watched him climbing over the railing, according to court documents.
He was taken by Lifestar to Hartford Hospital early Monday. Tuesday, spokesperson Tina Varona said Moreno was listed in critical condition. Thursday afternoon, when Director of Media Relations Rebecca Stewart was asked if Moreno was still there she responded, “He’s not our patient.”
Emails to the state Department of Correction media personnel asking if Moreno was in their custody were not answered by press time.
This week’s tragic events and revelations by the court and police have rocked the community and the families of the parents — and have made the national news all week.
Meanwhile, a transcript of court proceedings on June 29 details that Judge Barry C. Pinkus criticized Oyola, 19, and Moreno for “acting like children.” “(Y)ou need to grow up and deal with each other as adults, and you’re not doing that right now,” he said.
The hearing, which followed an order put in place on June 17 by Judge Edward Domnarski, was apparently the final case Pinkus heard before the court went into recess.
When Oyola applied for the restraining order on June 29, she said she did not know where Aaden was, as both Tony and Aaden went missing from a bedroom following a fight she had with Tony.
The fight concerned Oyola’s intention to take Aaden with her to dinner to see his grandfather. She said Moreno physically blocked her path from taking the baby, according to the court. Moreno told Pinkus that Oyola was throwing a “temper tantrum” and he did not want her to have custody of their son if she was going to act emotional, the documents say.
When Pinkus questioned Oyola on claims written in her application for a restraining order, she said Moreno is emotionally, and sometimes physically, abusive to her, the arraignment says.
In the affidavit, Oyola wrote that Moreno made various threats about making her disappear and sometimes shouted at their son if he was making too much noise. She also said Moreno hid two of her dresses the day of her high school graduation June 17, saying he thought it would be “funny.”
In court June 29, Moreno told Pinkus that on June 17 he took Aaden to a friend’s house for two hours and when he returned home, a family member sent him a screen shot that read: “did you know Tony’s baby is on Facebook?”
It was a photo and solicitation for information if anybody saw he or Aaden, court documents say.
It’s unclear who had posted the photograph on social media and where. #According to Moreno’s sworn statement, he made no attempt to contact Oyola when he took Aaden because his cell phone was broken.
Oyola said she filed for the restraining order because she did not know where her ex-boyfriend and son were on June 17.
On June 26, a friend of Moreno’s contacted the infant’s mother and reportedly said Moreno’s “mother, or her mother, was sick and wanted to see me and the baby.”
When Oyola arrived, Moreno allegedly rounded the corner and told her to sit down and demanded her phone. He allegedly threatened her that a lawyer said she could spend a year in jail if she didn’t cooperate with him and “make him happy.”
Oyola said she only lived with Moreno because it was all she could afford financially, but she had recently moved in with her two sisters, nephew and brother-in-law.
After Pinkus reviewed the facts of Oyola’s application, he declared that the issue seemed to pertain more to custody than protection.
“Are you afraid he’s going to come over and beat you up?” Pinkus asked.
“Sometimes,” Oyola said. “I feel like he’s always there, and it’s creepy.”
Moreno told the judge that Oyola acts in a way that is not “pleasant” and he did not want her to have the baby if she had a bad attitude.
“I’m just not convinced that there’s a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury,” Pinkus said in court. “Somebody needs to go downstairs and file a custody application, and you need to work out a parental rights agreement where the child is going to be, when the child is going to be with mom, when the child is going to be with dad, work out a child support order.”
According to Lt. Heather Desmond, at the same time, the Police Department was in the process of investigating the case against Moreno for two counts of violating a restraining order for the June 26 incident.
As Moreno’s court-appointed public defender, Jay McKay, was in Middletown Superior Court Thursday morning, outside a lone protester stood with a placard that criticized the judge.
The case had been moved to the Part A docket in the Middlesex Judicial District before Judge David Gold, where felony cases are typically handled.
Joe Campbell, 43, paced Court Street with a neon green sign, though barely legible from 20 feet away.
“Judge Barry C. Pinkus needs to be held accountable for his terrible handling of Aaden’s case,” he wrote.
Campbell, a Berlin native and father of four children, said he has been unable to sleep since reading news of the transcript.
“[Pinkus] was horrible to a 19-year-old,” Campbell said about the judge’s dismissal.
According to a transcript, Pinkus told Oyola and Moreno that he simply believed they did not have a good relationship, but he did not believe there was any danger involved. #Campbell said he believed Pinkus attempted to “mix up” Oyola’s words in court. “It seemed he was against the mother,” Campbell said.
Chief Court Administrator Patrick L. Carroll III said in a statement Wednesday that Pinkus’ ruling in the custody hearing “is representative of the difficult decisions that judges must make each and every day.”
“These discretionary decisions are made after an assessment of the evidence that is presented and in accordance with applicable state law,” Carroll said. “Yet even with a deliberative process, it is impossible for judges to predict the future with certainty.”
Dad is identified as TONY MORENO.
Sadly reminiscent of the 2010 murder of 9-month-old Wyatt Garcia in California.
http://www.middletownpress.com/general-news/20150709/judge-in-middletown-rejected-no-contact-order-filed-by-aaden-morenos-mother-due-to-lack-of-imminent-harm
Judge in Middletown rejected no-contact order filed by Aaden Moreno’s mother due to lack of ‘imminent harm’
Joe Campbell, 43, protests outside the Middletown Superior Court Thursday morning, as Tony Moreno’s court-appointed public defender was appearing before Judge Gold. Campbell said he wants Judge Barry C. Pinkus held accountable for his ruling in the Aaden Moreno custody case. Brian Zahn — Middletown Press
By Brian Zahn, The Middletown Press Posted: 07/09/15, 12:03 PM EDT | Updated: 4 days ago MIDDLETOWN
Just seven days before Tony Moreno allegedly threw his infant into the Connecticut River, a judge rejected a no-contact order request against him for the 7-month-old and his mother Adrianna Oyola, citing a lack of “imminent harm,” court documents show.
Just before midnight Sunday, Moreno, 21, flung Aaden Moreno into the Connecticut River from where he stood on the Arrigoni Bridge, he admitted in a sworn statement, according to police.
He jumped minutes later while officers, alerted by a 911 call from a family member, watched him climbing over the railing, according to court documents.
He was taken by Lifestar to Hartford Hospital early Monday. Tuesday, spokesperson Tina Varona said Moreno was listed in critical condition. Thursday afternoon, when Director of Media Relations Rebecca Stewart was asked if Moreno was still there she responded, “He’s not our patient.”
Emails to the state Department of Correction media personnel asking if Moreno was in their custody were not answered by press time.
This week’s tragic events and revelations by the court and police have rocked the community and the families of the parents — and have made the national news all week.
Meanwhile, a transcript of court proceedings on June 29 details that Judge Barry C. Pinkus criticized Oyola, 19, and Moreno for “acting like children.” “(Y)ou need to grow up and deal with each other as adults, and you’re not doing that right now,” he said.
The hearing, which followed an order put in place on June 17 by Judge Edward Domnarski, was apparently the final case Pinkus heard before the court went into recess.
When Oyola applied for the restraining order on June 29, she said she did not know where Aaden was, as both Tony and Aaden went missing from a bedroom following a fight she had with Tony.
The fight concerned Oyola’s intention to take Aaden with her to dinner to see his grandfather. She said Moreno physically blocked her path from taking the baby, according to the court. Moreno told Pinkus that Oyola was throwing a “temper tantrum” and he did not want her to have custody of their son if she was going to act emotional, the documents say.
When Pinkus questioned Oyola on claims written in her application for a restraining order, she said Moreno is emotionally, and sometimes physically, abusive to her, the arraignment says.
In the affidavit, Oyola wrote that Moreno made various threats about making her disappear and sometimes shouted at their son if he was making too much noise. She also said Moreno hid two of her dresses the day of her high school graduation June 17, saying he thought it would be “funny.”
In court June 29, Moreno told Pinkus that on June 17 he took Aaden to a friend’s house for two hours and when he returned home, a family member sent him a screen shot that read: “did you know Tony’s baby is on Facebook?”
It was a photo and solicitation for information if anybody saw he or Aaden, court documents say.
It’s unclear who had posted the photograph on social media and where. #According to Moreno’s sworn statement, he made no attempt to contact Oyola when he took Aaden because his cell phone was broken.
Oyola said she filed for the restraining order because she did not know where her ex-boyfriend and son were on June 17.
On June 26, a friend of Moreno’s contacted the infant’s mother and reportedly said Moreno’s “mother, or her mother, was sick and wanted to see me and the baby.”
When Oyola arrived, Moreno allegedly rounded the corner and told her to sit down and demanded her phone. He allegedly threatened her that a lawyer said she could spend a year in jail if she didn’t cooperate with him and “make him happy.”
Oyola said she only lived with Moreno because it was all she could afford financially, but she had recently moved in with her two sisters, nephew and brother-in-law.
After Pinkus reviewed the facts of Oyola’s application, he declared that the issue seemed to pertain more to custody than protection.
“Are you afraid he’s going to come over and beat you up?” Pinkus asked.
“Sometimes,” Oyola said. “I feel like he’s always there, and it’s creepy.”
Moreno told the judge that Oyola acts in a way that is not “pleasant” and he did not want her to have the baby if she had a bad attitude.
“I’m just not convinced that there’s a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury,” Pinkus said in court. “Somebody needs to go downstairs and file a custody application, and you need to work out a parental rights agreement where the child is going to be, when the child is going to be with mom, when the child is going to be with dad, work out a child support order.”
According to Lt. Heather Desmond, at the same time, the Police Department was in the process of investigating the case against Moreno for two counts of violating a restraining order for the June 26 incident.
As Moreno’s court-appointed public defender, Jay McKay, was in Middletown Superior Court Thursday morning, outside a lone protester stood with a placard that criticized the judge.
The case had been moved to the Part A docket in the Middlesex Judicial District before Judge David Gold, where felony cases are typically handled.
Joe Campbell, 43, paced Court Street with a neon green sign, though barely legible from 20 feet away.
“Judge Barry C. Pinkus needs to be held accountable for his terrible handling of Aaden’s case,” he wrote.
Campbell, a Berlin native and father of four children, said he has been unable to sleep since reading news of the transcript.
“[Pinkus] was horrible to a 19-year-old,” Campbell said about the judge’s dismissal.
According to a transcript, Pinkus told Oyola and Moreno that he simply believed they did not have a good relationship, but he did not believe there was any danger involved. #Campbell said he believed Pinkus attempted to “mix up” Oyola’s words in court. “It seemed he was against the mother,” Campbell said.
Chief Court Administrator Patrick L. Carroll III said in a statement Wednesday that Pinkus’ ruling in the custody hearing “is representative of the difficult decisions that judges must make each and every day.”
“These discretionary decisions are made after an assessment of the evidence that is presented and in accordance with applicable state law,” Carroll said. “Yet even with a deliberative process, it is impossible for judges to predict the future with certainty.”
Friday, June 26, 2015
Dad drives stoned, nearly kills 4-year-old daughter, abandons accident site to get rid of the evidence--and still keeps his visitation rights (Syracuse, New York)
Just another sign of how the New York family courts have been completely taken over and corrupted by the fathers rights people.
You know what strikes me? Dad BRYAN TANNER isn't just a pothead. He's a pothead who lies, and he is a pothead who was more intent on getting rid of the evidence than staying with his daughter as she was near death.
These family court parasites will bleed this mother till she is destitute.
That's what the family courts in Chautauqua County did to me. Judge Judith Claire, just like these people, is more interested in scoring point with her FR buddies than doing right by kids. She made my daughter stay in a home that was filled with abused animals in cages, a house that reeked of urine and feces--all because the sick hoarder at this house was her father.
Shame on all of you who do this to kids.
http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/06/father_given_visits_with_girl_4_after_smoking_pot_in_car_causing_near-fatal_cras.html#incart_m-rpt-1iving
Driving stoned and nearly killing daughter, 4, not enough to strip dad of visits
By Julie McMahon on June 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, updated June 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM
Peyton Bean case: Court OKs deal continuing father's visits with girl he nearly killed
Driving stoned and nearly killing daughter, 4, not enough to strip dad of visits
Off-duty deputy helped save 4-year-old from near-fatal crash on Thruway
'Miracle kid' has face rebuilt after her near-fatal crash caused by father smoking pot
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Bryan Tanner smoked a marijuana pipe while driving down the state Thruway with his 4-year-old daughter in the backseat. He drove off the highway, causing a crash that nearly killed his child.
The girl's head took the brunt of the collision into a tree. Most of the bones in Peyton Bean's face shattered.
Tanner was alone with his daughter on that day last year because of a family court order. After Peyton recovered, her mother Taylor Decker went back to court with a request: that Tanner never be allowed to see Peyton again. A family court official told her no.
Even after Tanner, 25, admitted in criminal court to smoking marijuana while driving his daughter, an Onondaga County Family Court referee granted Tanner day-time visits with the girl on alternating weekends, to be supervised by his parents.
The referee, Salvatore Pavone, found the crash was not grounds for imposing the "drastic remedy of denying all visitation." Tanner will likely emerge from jail next year with the right to continue to visit Peyton.
The fight over the father's access to Peyton shows how much irresponsible behavior the court system will tolerate to make sure a child knows both birth parents. If smoking pot while driving with a kid in the car isn't enough to deny a parent visits, what is?
The crash
Tanner and Decker exchanged their daughter Peyton Bean, who took the mother's maiden name, on Sept. 25, 2014. They met at day care in Clay around 4:15 p.m. As Tanner was driving west on the Thruway to his home in Canandaigua, Ontario County, he smoked marijuana from a pipe.
Tanner lost control of the Plymouth Breeze and veered to the left. He overcorrected and veered to the right. The car went down an embankment on the right side of the road. The back passenger's side of the car, where Peyton was strapped into a booster seat, hit a tree.
Her face and head took the impact. Many bones were broken, even shattered. A first responder described seeing a steady flow of blood from her mouth and her leg contorted between the front seat and the tree.
A helicopter crew put Peyton on life support as they rushed her to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester.
Tanner had minor injuries. When state troopers arrived, he was in a nearby wooded area. He told investigators all he remembered was drifting off to sleep while he was driving, and he'd gone to the woods to vomit.
By the end of the night, his story changed: He admitted he was throwing a marijuana bowl into the woods. Investigators found another pipe with marijuana residue in the car. A blood test confirmed he was high when he crashed.
Decker, 22, and her husband Robby, 27, both of Clay, learned the news from Tanner's girlfriend. They found a babysitter for their daughter Odette, 2, and rushed to the hospital.
They stayed at Strong for 18 days, taking turns sleeping on a single-person cot and pillows on the floor. After 11 days and a seven-hour surgery, Peyton was awakened from a medically induced coma.
Doctors worried she would lose sight, hearing, taste and smell. Memory loss and brain damage were also concerns. Peyton had to relearn how to talk and swallow. She returned for a second operation in mid-November, which required three more days of hospitalization.
The battle resumes
In December, after Peyton's recovery, Decker returned to family court, armed with an Onondaga County Child Protective Services report saying Tanner had showed "irrefutable negligence."
CPS also deemed Tanner an inadequate guardian and said he was a high risk to his child. Decker provided the report and 200 pages of court filings and transcripts to Syracuse.com.
In her effort to strip Tanner from Peyton's life, Decker also argued Tanner had been inconsistent in his involvement in the girl's life. He had multiple license suspensions for failing to pay child support.
In April, before family court made a decision about the visits, Tanner admitted in criminal court to smoking marijuana in the car and causing the crash.
In an interview, Tanner said he only admitted in court to smoking while he was driving in order to get a plea bargain.
"Honestly I did not," said Tanner, who now lives in Marcellus. "I have never smoked in front of my daughter, especially in the car."
Two weeks after Tanner's plea, Pavone decided Tanner should have access to Peyton, for two six-hour visits, supervised by his parents, every other weekend. Through his office, Pavone declined to comment.
Decker and Tanner met as students at Marcellus High School. As a senior, she got pregnant.
Tanner was already in college at Finger Lakes Community College in Canandaigua. By the time Peyton was born on Easter Day, 2010, the two had separated. Peyton went home with Decker.
Despite those things ... it is still a fundamental right of a parent to visit with a child.
It wasn't clear what role Tanner would have in her life. When uncertainty boiled over into dispute and Decker suspected Tanner was using drugs, she went to family court.
For the next four years, they would appear before Pavone multiple times, each at Decker's request. Decker has had primary physical custody throughout the court fight, with Tanner sharing legal custody. That means he can participate in decisions about Peyton's schooling, religious upbringing and medical care.
At one point, Decker told the court she felt Peyton was unsafe in the car with Tanner, Pavone said he gave the father the benefit of the doubt because he had a valid license and a car seat.
Decker complained of Peyton coming home unfed, without a nap and in dirty diapers. The judge's response: "Are you a child psychologist, ma'am?"
When Decker said Tanner was using drugs, Pavone ordered a drug test. The hair follicle test came back negative. Before the results were revealed, Pavone said the father would retain visits with the child no matter the outcome.
"... You need to understand that despite those things that it is still a fundamental right of a parent to visit with a child. It's presumed to be in the best interest of the child," Pavone said, according to a court transcript. "This is not one of those extremely rare situations where the court can employ what – what the Appellate Division has called the drastic remedy of cutting off all contact between the father and the child."
In the appellate case to which Pavone was referring, Acker v. Acker, a father was stripped of his visits after his oldest of three children testified that the visits were upsetting.
The court ruled that the best interests of the children would be served by supervised visits at a neutral site. In that case, from 1995, there is no mention of abuse or neglect on the part of the father.
Experts said there are few situations in which a judge will deny a parent access to a child. #Judges must act in the child's best interest, but they have broad discretion in determining what those interests are, said Peter Charnetsky, managing partner at the Tully & Rinckey law firm in Binghamton.
"Sometimes that means continuing and enhancing the relationship [between a father and child]," said Charnetsky, a former Broome County Family Court judge.
Because many people believe it is important for child to know both parents, proposed laws which would allow judges to strip a parent of visitation have failed, said Sarah Ramsey, former family law professor at Syracuse University.
"I can't imagine -- as the mother, I would be so upset if that happened to my child," Ramsey said of the crash. "And then the court says I have to keep letting him see her."
Still, she said, previous cases suggest, "It would not be within the judge's discretion to totally deny visitation."
Despite Decker's concerns, family court gradually permitted Tanner more time with his daughter in the years before the crash. He was awarded unsupervised visits with the girl every other weekend.
Tanner maintains that he will always be in Peyton's life. He said the court only takes away a parent's rights to visit under "wildly extreme" circumstances, like murder or molestation.
"I broke the law and I fessed up to it. I'll get what comes to me and I'll come out the other end and I'll jump through all the hoops -- rehab, counseling, drug testing -- as frequently as they like," he said. "I made a mistake and I regret it every day since it happened.
"I am her father. I'm always going to be her father. I'm going to be there always."
Life after the crash
Nine months after Peyton nearly died in a car crash, she is a playful, active 5-year-old. She has posed for the cover of Rochester Golisano Children's Hospital's magazine and is featured on its website as a "Miracle Kid."
Nine months after Peyton nearly died, she is a playful, active 5-year-old. She has posed for the cover of the hospital's magazine and is featured on its website as a "Miracle Kid."
She has all her senses. Her smell and taste returned when a splint was removed from her nose just before Thanksgiving. Around that time, Peyton was taken off a soft-food diet and the cast on her left leg was removed. On the way home from the doctor's office, the Deckers stopped at a gas station for popcorn, one of her favorite foods.
The surgical incision still sometimes makes her skin sensitive when her mom brushes her hair. Decker styles her hair to cover up the scar. Peyton will have yearly checkups with a plastic surgeon at least until she is a teenager.
For days after the crash, Peyton's hair was messy with blood, her mother said, until a nurse at Rochester's Strong Memorial Hospital cleaned and braided it.
Now, Peyton and Odette roughhouse and jump on the beds in the room they share. The Deckers asked the hospital for a face plate to protect Peyton. Doctors reassured them Peyton would be better able to take a hit than her little sister.
When Peyton sees a car on the side of the road, she asks about the occupants' safety, her mother said. In the winter after the crash, she asked Decker a lot of questions about how to drive in the snow.
Peyton's therapist called these triggers that can result in intense distress. The therapist wrote the family court judge to say that visits with Tanner negatively affect Peyton's emotional stability and capacity to heal from the crash.
Decker, who worked at Peyton's day care center, hasn't been able to return to work. She estimated her and her husband, who does maintenance and handiwork, spent at least $10,000 on court and attorney fees and lost wages since the crash.
They are pregnant with another child, a girl Peyton wants to name Lucy, after one of her favorite "Despicable Me" animated characters.
Peyton calls Robby Decker "daddy" without prompting. #"Since all this has happened, I'm sitting in the back of the courtroom with Pavone up there, and I just want to say, 'Hey, Pavone, count me in!' " Decker said. "Dad's right here. I've been here since Day One."
Tanner is expected to be sentenced in July to nine months in jail and five years' probation. Taylor Decker expects she will return to court for the next 13 years after that, until Peyton is an adult.
"Everything I have to offer is nothing anyone wants to hear," Decker said. "So I feel like the only thing left to do in the court system is continue to reappear and express my beliefs for what's best for my child."
You know what strikes me? Dad BRYAN TANNER isn't just a pothead. He's a pothead who lies, and he is a pothead who was more intent on getting rid of the evidence than staying with his daughter as she was near death.
These family court parasites will bleed this mother till she is destitute.
That's what the family courts in Chautauqua County did to me. Judge Judith Claire, just like these people, is more interested in scoring point with her FR buddies than doing right by kids. She made my daughter stay in a home that was filled with abused animals in cages, a house that reeked of urine and feces--all because the sick hoarder at this house was her father.
Shame on all of you who do this to kids.
http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/06/father_given_visits_with_girl_4_after_smoking_pot_in_car_causing_near-fatal_cras.html#incart_m-rpt-1iving
Driving stoned and nearly killing daughter, 4, not enough to strip dad of visits
By Julie McMahon on June 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM, updated June 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM
Peyton Bean case: Court OKs deal continuing father's visits with girl he nearly killed
Driving stoned and nearly killing daughter, 4, not enough to strip dad of visits
Off-duty deputy helped save 4-year-old from near-fatal crash on Thruway
'Miracle kid' has face rebuilt after her near-fatal crash caused by father smoking pot
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Bryan Tanner smoked a marijuana pipe while driving down the state Thruway with his 4-year-old daughter in the backseat. He drove off the highway, causing a crash that nearly killed his child.
The girl's head took the brunt of the collision into a tree. Most of the bones in Peyton Bean's face shattered.
Tanner was alone with his daughter on that day last year because of a family court order. After Peyton recovered, her mother Taylor Decker went back to court with a request: that Tanner never be allowed to see Peyton again. A family court official told her no.
Even after Tanner, 25, admitted in criminal court to smoking marijuana while driving his daughter, an Onondaga County Family Court referee granted Tanner day-time visits with the girl on alternating weekends, to be supervised by his parents.
The referee, Salvatore Pavone, found the crash was not grounds for imposing the "drastic remedy of denying all visitation." Tanner will likely emerge from jail next year with the right to continue to visit Peyton.
The fight over the father's access to Peyton shows how much irresponsible behavior the court system will tolerate to make sure a child knows both birth parents. If smoking pot while driving with a kid in the car isn't enough to deny a parent visits, what is?
The crash
Tanner and Decker exchanged their daughter Peyton Bean, who took the mother's maiden name, on Sept. 25, 2014. They met at day care in Clay around 4:15 p.m. As Tanner was driving west on the Thruway to his home in Canandaigua, Ontario County, he smoked marijuana from a pipe.
Tanner lost control of the Plymouth Breeze and veered to the left. He overcorrected and veered to the right. The car went down an embankment on the right side of the road. The back passenger's side of the car, where Peyton was strapped into a booster seat, hit a tree.
Her face and head took the impact. Many bones were broken, even shattered. A first responder described seeing a steady flow of blood from her mouth and her leg contorted between the front seat and the tree.
A helicopter crew put Peyton on life support as they rushed her to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester.
Tanner had minor injuries. When state troopers arrived, he was in a nearby wooded area. He told investigators all he remembered was drifting off to sleep while he was driving, and he'd gone to the woods to vomit.
By the end of the night, his story changed: He admitted he was throwing a marijuana bowl into the woods. Investigators found another pipe with marijuana residue in the car. A blood test confirmed he was high when he crashed.
Decker, 22, and her husband Robby, 27, both of Clay, learned the news from Tanner's girlfriend. They found a babysitter for their daughter Odette, 2, and rushed to the hospital.
They stayed at Strong for 18 days, taking turns sleeping on a single-person cot and pillows on the floor. After 11 days and a seven-hour surgery, Peyton was awakened from a medically induced coma.
Doctors worried she would lose sight, hearing, taste and smell. Memory loss and brain damage were also concerns. Peyton had to relearn how to talk and swallow. She returned for a second operation in mid-November, which required three more days of hospitalization.
The battle resumes
In December, after Peyton's recovery, Decker returned to family court, armed with an Onondaga County Child Protective Services report saying Tanner had showed "irrefutable negligence."
CPS also deemed Tanner an inadequate guardian and said he was a high risk to his child. Decker provided the report and 200 pages of court filings and transcripts to Syracuse.com.
In her effort to strip Tanner from Peyton's life, Decker also argued Tanner had been inconsistent in his involvement in the girl's life. He had multiple license suspensions for failing to pay child support.
In April, before family court made a decision about the visits, Tanner admitted in criminal court to smoking marijuana in the car and causing the crash.
In an interview, Tanner said he only admitted in court to smoking while he was driving in order to get a plea bargain.
"Honestly I did not," said Tanner, who now lives in Marcellus. "I have never smoked in front of my daughter, especially in the car."
Two weeks after Tanner's plea, Pavone decided Tanner should have access to Peyton, for two six-hour visits, supervised by his parents, every other weekend. Through his office, Pavone declined to comment.
Decker and Tanner met as students at Marcellus High School. As a senior, she got pregnant.
Tanner was already in college at Finger Lakes Community College in Canandaigua. By the time Peyton was born on Easter Day, 2010, the two had separated. Peyton went home with Decker.
Despite those things ... it is still a fundamental right of a parent to visit with a child.
It wasn't clear what role Tanner would have in her life. When uncertainty boiled over into dispute and Decker suspected Tanner was using drugs, she went to family court.
For the next four years, they would appear before Pavone multiple times, each at Decker's request. Decker has had primary physical custody throughout the court fight, with Tanner sharing legal custody. That means he can participate in decisions about Peyton's schooling, religious upbringing and medical care.
At one point, Decker told the court she felt Peyton was unsafe in the car with Tanner, Pavone said he gave the father the benefit of the doubt because he had a valid license and a car seat.
Decker complained of Peyton coming home unfed, without a nap and in dirty diapers. The judge's response: "Are you a child psychologist, ma'am?"
When Decker said Tanner was using drugs, Pavone ordered a drug test. The hair follicle test came back negative. Before the results were revealed, Pavone said the father would retain visits with the child no matter the outcome.
"... You need to understand that despite those things that it is still a fundamental right of a parent to visit with a child. It's presumed to be in the best interest of the child," Pavone said, according to a court transcript. "This is not one of those extremely rare situations where the court can employ what – what the Appellate Division has called the drastic remedy of cutting off all contact between the father and the child."
In the appellate case to which Pavone was referring, Acker v. Acker, a father was stripped of his visits after his oldest of three children testified that the visits were upsetting.
The court ruled that the best interests of the children would be served by supervised visits at a neutral site. In that case, from 1995, there is no mention of abuse or neglect on the part of the father.
Experts said there are few situations in which a judge will deny a parent access to a child. #Judges must act in the child's best interest, but they have broad discretion in determining what those interests are, said Peter Charnetsky, managing partner at the Tully & Rinckey law firm in Binghamton.
"Sometimes that means continuing and enhancing the relationship [between a father and child]," said Charnetsky, a former Broome County Family Court judge.
Because many people believe it is important for child to know both parents, proposed laws which would allow judges to strip a parent of visitation have failed, said Sarah Ramsey, former family law professor at Syracuse University.
"I can't imagine -- as the mother, I would be so upset if that happened to my child," Ramsey said of the crash. "And then the court says I have to keep letting him see her."
Still, she said, previous cases suggest, "It would not be within the judge's discretion to totally deny visitation."
Despite Decker's concerns, family court gradually permitted Tanner more time with his daughter in the years before the crash. He was awarded unsupervised visits with the girl every other weekend.
Tanner maintains that he will always be in Peyton's life. He said the court only takes away a parent's rights to visit under "wildly extreme" circumstances, like murder or molestation.
"I broke the law and I fessed up to it. I'll get what comes to me and I'll come out the other end and I'll jump through all the hoops -- rehab, counseling, drug testing -- as frequently as they like," he said. "I made a mistake and I regret it every day since it happened.
"I am her father. I'm always going to be her father. I'm going to be there always."
Life after the crash
Nine months after Peyton nearly died in a car crash, she is a playful, active 5-year-old. She has posed for the cover of Rochester Golisano Children's Hospital's magazine and is featured on its website as a "Miracle Kid."
Nine months after Peyton nearly died, she is a playful, active 5-year-old. She has posed for the cover of the hospital's magazine and is featured on its website as a "Miracle Kid."
She has all her senses. Her smell and taste returned when a splint was removed from her nose just before Thanksgiving. Around that time, Peyton was taken off a soft-food diet and the cast on her left leg was removed. On the way home from the doctor's office, the Deckers stopped at a gas station for popcorn, one of her favorite foods.
The surgical incision still sometimes makes her skin sensitive when her mom brushes her hair. Decker styles her hair to cover up the scar. Peyton will have yearly checkups with a plastic surgeon at least until she is a teenager.
For days after the crash, Peyton's hair was messy with blood, her mother said, until a nurse at Rochester's Strong Memorial Hospital cleaned and braided it.
Now, Peyton and Odette roughhouse and jump on the beds in the room they share. The Deckers asked the hospital for a face plate to protect Peyton. Doctors reassured them Peyton would be better able to take a hit than her little sister.
When Peyton sees a car on the side of the road, she asks about the occupants' safety, her mother said. In the winter after the crash, she asked Decker a lot of questions about how to drive in the snow.
Peyton's therapist called these triggers that can result in intense distress. The therapist wrote the family court judge to say that visits with Tanner negatively affect Peyton's emotional stability and capacity to heal from the crash.
Decker, who worked at Peyton's day care center, hasn't been able to return to work. She estimated her and her husband, who does maintenance and handiwork, spent at least $10,000 on court and attorney fees and lost wages since the crash.
They are pregnant with another child, a girl Peyton wants to name Lucy, after one of her favorite "Despicable Me" animated characters.
Peyton calls Robby Decker "daddy" without prompting. #"Since all this has happened, I'm sitting in the back of the courtroom with Pavone up there, and I just want to say, 'Hey, Pavone, count me in!' " Decker said. "Dad's right here. I've been here since Day One."
Tanner is expected to be sentenced in July to nine months in jail and five years' probation. Taylor Decker expects she will return to court for the next 13 years after that, until Peyton is an adult.
"Everything I have to offer is nothing anyone wants to hear," Decker said. "So I feel like the only thing left to do in the court system is continue to reappear and express my beliefs for what's best for my child."
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Family court order two little girls into custody of "emotionally abusive" father with history of domestic violence (United Kingdom)
And STILL the fathers rights groups whine about how discriminated against they are. The Big Lie simply covers up the sordid reality: that men like UNNAMED DAD, dads with histories of domestic violence and depriving the mother of the kids, get custody all the time.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585749/Violent-abusive-father-custody-young-daughters-outrageous-court-ruling-cancer-death
Violent and abusive father given custody of young daughters in outrageous court ruling
TWO young children who lost their mother to cancer must now stay with their "emotionally abusive" father, Britain's top family judge has ruled.
By Oli Smith
PUBLISHED: 21:20, Fri, Jun 19, 2015
The family court ruling has ordered the kids to return to their father
The girls, aged just three and four, had been offered a new life in America by their maternal great aunt and uncle.
But, a leading family court judge has ordered the kids to live with their father in Britain despite serious concerns over his parenting.
The kids' mother tragically died from cancer in 2013 amidst an ongoing family court battle.
The mother had been hoping to take custody of both children after suffering domestic violence at the father's hands.
The custody battle then spilled over into an international tug of war after the mother's passing.
The children's great aunt and uncle from Illinois stepped in to give the kids a home away from their father.
An earlier judge ruled the father 'emotionally abused' both the mother and children after taking the youngsters to Pakistan without permission.
The father even tried to use a 'false will' and a 'bogus confession', which he claimed the mother had signed, to keep custody.
And, following the mother's death, he "laid the ground for attempting" to obtain a life insurance payout, the court heard.
However, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, blocked the great aunt and uncle's bid to adopt the children.
He insisted: "The case for adoption is simply not made out. "I am very conscious that the consequences of this, in a sense, is that the father wins by default.
"The children go to him because the only alternative is ruled out because adoption is ruled out.
"But it is fundamentally important children are not to be adopted merely because their parenting is less than perfect, indeed, perhaps only barely adequate".
Despite the 'serious findings' against the father, an independent social worker claimed he had "a positive relationship" with the girls.
He also praised the "generally high quality" time he spent with his children.
The children are currently with their great aunt and uncle in America on holiday but have been ordered to return to their father by August.
Since their mother's young death, the children have spent three extended holidays with family in America.
The judge also ruled that the two young girls will continue to be monitored by the courts.
Names involved in the case remain anonymous under regulations governing family court actions involving children.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585749/Violent-abusive-father-custody-young-daughters-outrageous-court-ruling-cancer-death
Violent and abusive father given custody of young daughters in outrageous court ruling
TWO young children who lost their mother to cancer must now stay with their "emotionally abusive" father, Britain's top family judge has ruled.
By Oli Smith
PUBLISHED: 21:20, Fri, Jun 19, 2015
The family court ruling has ordered the kids to return to their father
The girls, aged just three and four, had been offered a new life in America by their maternal great aunt and uncle.
But, a leading family court judge has ordered the kids to live with their father in Britain despite serious concerns over his parenting.
The kids' mother tragically died from cancer in 2013 amidst an ongoing family court battle.
The mother had been hoping to take custody of both children after suffering domestic violence at the father's hands.
The custody battle then spilled over into an international tug of war after the mother's passing.
The children's great aunt and uncle from Illinois stepped in to give the kids a home away from their father.
An earlier judge ruled the father 'emotionally abused' both the mother and children after taking the youngsters to Pakistan without permission.
The father even tried to use a 'false will' and a 'bogus confession', which he claimed the mother had signed, to keep custody.
And, following the mother's death, he "laid the ground for attempting" to obtain a life insurance payout, the court heard.
However, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, blocked the great aunt and uncle's bid to adopt the children.
He insisted: "The case for adoption is simply not made out. "I am very conscious that the consequences of this, in a sense, is that the father wins by default.
"The children go to him because the only alternative is ruled out because adoption is ruled out.
"But it is fundamentally important children are not to be adopted merely because their parenting is less than perfect, indeed, perhaps only barely adequate".
Despite the 'serious findings' against the father, an independent social worker claimed he had "a positive relationship" with the girls.
He also praised the "generally high quality" time he spent with his children.
The children are currently with their great aunt and uncle in America on holiday but have been ordered to return to their father by August.
Since their mother's young death, the children have spent three extended holidays with family in America.
The judge also ruled that the two young girls will continue to be monitored by the courts.
Names involved in the case remain anonymous under regulations governing family court actions involving children.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Dad, a former Catholic priest, accused of sexually abusing son--so he goes for child custody (Jefferson County, Alabama)
Where to even start with this. Dad DAVID STONE initiated a sexual relationship with the mother when she came to him for confession and he was serving as her "spiritual advisor." It is accepted ethical practice that ANYONE serving in a counseling capacity does not have sex with a client or patient. It is inherently unequal and a huge breach of professional ethics.
But we're told it was "consensual"--with no further comment.
Then we're told that SHE was FIRED FROM HER JOB while he was merely put on a "long-term leave of absence." OUTRAGEOUS.
Of course this POS gets visitation anyway--despite never having been married to the mother and violating all kinds of ethical standards--and then promptly molests the child. (Studies consistently show that children very seldom lie about these things.)
But its HER motives that are being questioned not his--despite the fact that abusers VERY TYPICALLY go after custody as a way to secure complete access to the victim and eliminate the protective mother from the picture. And notice how Mom is raked over the coals for taking care of her son after an automobile accident. Very typical of the bizarre, cooked up accusations thrown at mothers when abusers are intent on punishing mom and securing access to the child victim.
Psychologist ALAN BLOTCKY is clearly a fathers rights flunky....
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/03/catholic_priest_ex-ewtn_tv_hos.html
Catholic priest, ex-EWTN TV host, fathered child; he's now in custody fight, accused of abuse
By Greg Garrison on March 25, 2015 at 3:40 PM, updated March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM
David Stone, 54, formerly known as Father Frances Mary Stone, was host of the TV program "Life on the Rock" on Eternal Word Television Network. He fathered a child born in 2008. The mother was fired from EWTN and Stone was put on long-term leave of absence, according to Jefferson County court documents.
A national group that monitors allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy has focused attention this week on the Alabama case of David Lawrence Stone, a Catholic priest and former EWTN TV host who was arrested in 2013 and charged with sexual abuse of a minor under 12.
The minor he is charged with sexually abusing is his own son, now six years old.
Stone, 54, formerly known as Father Frances Mary Stone, was host of the TV program "Life on the Rock" on Eternal Word Television Network.
In court filings, Stone's attorneys have argued that the allegation of child abuse is false. Stone has been in a lengthy custody battle with Christina Presnell, the mother of his child, according to Jefferson County Court records.
A spokeswoman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, was in Birmingham on Tuesday to discuss the case. She said Bishop Robert J. Baker, head of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, should let people know about the allegation and that the priest still lives in Irondale.
"Even if you believe he's innocent, they should be open about it and let the truth come out," said Barbara Dorris, outreach director for SNAP. She said that since the Catholic Church was rocked by scandal in recent years over accusations of sexual abuse by priests, bishops have vowed to be more open about allegations against priests. "Protect the kids," she said. "The bishops in some states have not been taken to task. This crisis isn't over."
Baker said that Stone no longer is a member of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, the order of priests founded in 1987 by Mother Angelica, who also founded EWTN. Stone no longer lives at the Annunciation Friary in Irondale, Baker said. Stone lives in a rented house in Irondale, according to court documents.
"He's not living in their community," Baker said. "They are following canonical procedures on the case."
The diocese investigated the case and it's now being played out in the judicial system, in both criminal and civil cases in Jefferson County.
"We have investigated, and done everything we're required to do," Baker said. "He is out of the ministry. Everything is pending the outcome of the trials. My understanding is he is saying he is falsely accused. Any of these situations are difficult."
Priest and mother of his child both lost jobs at EWTN
Scott Morro, an attorney for Presnell, said the relationship between Stone and Presnell started when she was working for EWTN. Presnell worked as a human resource coordinator for EWTN, according to court documents. She met Stone in 1998, went to confession with him as her priest and considered him her spiritual adviser, then began a sexual relationship with him in 2001. They kept the relationship secret, but were discovered when she became pregnant. EWTN fired Presnell in 2008 and Stone was put on a long-term leave of absence, court records show.
"She started working there, and she started to be counseled by Dave," Morro said. "That grew into a flirtatious relationship, which grew into a dating relationship, which led to the conception of their child. It was all consensual."
Presnell, 47, was widowed in 1999 after a 13-year marriage and had two daughters and a son with her husband. She also had another son by another father while separated from her husband, then had Stone's son, who was born in 2008, according to court documents.
Stone arrested after mother files complaint of abuse
The sexual abuse case against Stone is still pending in Jefferson County, Morro said. "They're waiting to present it to the grand jury," he said.
According to court documents, Stone had visitation with his son starting in 2010. In May 2011, Presnell said that the boy told her that his father put his finger in the boy's anus, causing him to defecate on the bed. Stone denies that story and says she made it up. She filed a police report. Stone was arrested by Irondale Police on Oct. 9, 2013 and released on $150,000 bond.
Stone does not currently have visitation privileges with his son as a condition of the bond, court records show. He has been fighting for visitation privileges and custody in civil court in Jefferson County.
William Bradford and Amber Ladner, attorneys for Stone on the criminal charge, said the allegation against him is false.
"Mr. Stone's primary concern has always been, and remains today, his son's well being," Bradford and Ladner said in a prepared statement. "The actions of SNAP in recent days are baseless, misguided, and driven by a lack of information as to the true and correct facts regarding Mr. Stone, his son, Ms. Presnell, and the ongoing litigation. Due to this lack of basic understanding, the statement of SNAP is replete with false information regarding the situation and Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone took a leave of absence from the Church prior to his son's birth. It was Mr. Stone who initiated the legal proceedings in Jefferson County Family Court in an effort to gain custody or visitation with his son. This was done with the sole purpose of Mr. Stone having a meaningful father/son relationship with his child. Thereafter, Ms. Presnell prompted the filing of criminal charges against Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone adamantly denies all allegations of any wrongdoing regarding his son, and is of the opinion that the false charges are the result of an effort to gain advantage in the Family Court proceeding. Mr. Stone will continue to press his case for custody and/or visitation, and will vigorously defend himself against all false allegations of criminal conduct. To that end, he continues to look forward to the true facts regarding this situation being brought forth in the courts as soon as possible."
Latest court filings include clinical psychologist's reports
Presnell was held in contempt of court on Feb. 13 by Jefferson County Judge Carnella Greene Norman for not appearing in court for depositions. Morro said that Presnell was taking care of her oldest son who was in a hospital intensive care unit in Tennessee for several days after a car accident, and that she had previously done depositions on the case. Morro filed an appeal of Norman's ruling on March 6.
Morro, a former police officer, said his client's allegations of abuse against Stone are credible.
"These are egregious charges against a man," Morro said. "If I didn't believe they were true, I wouldn't be representing her."
Former Birmingham attorney Mitch Damsky, who represented Stone after his arrest but last year moved to Wyoming, said the abuse allegation may be an effort to gain advantage in the custody dispute. "I really don't think that he did it," Damsky said. "It didn't add up to me."
In the most recent civil court filing today, March 25, a clinical psychologist's reports on both Presnell and Stone were submitted. "Christina's allegation against Dave is highly questionable given the timing and circumstance of it," wrote licensed clinical psychologist Alan Blotcky. "Dave's psychological evaluation does not even hint at a person who is capable of abuse. It is implausible." Blotcky wrote that Stone is "fully capable of being a healthy and competent parent," and recommended that Stone be given visitation. Physical custody for Stone "should be a viable option in this case," he wrote.
But Ladner noted that even if Stone were awarded visitation with his son, it's prohibited in the terms of his bond, and could be delayed pending the outcome of the criminal case.
But we're told it was "consensual"--with no further comment.
Then we're told that SHE was FIRED FROM HER JOB while he was merely put on a "long-term leave of absence." OUTRAGEOUS.
Of course this POS gets visitation anyway--despite never having been married to the mother and violating all kinds of ethical standards--and then promptly molests the child. (Studies consistently show that children very seldom lie about these things.)
But its HER motives that are being questioned not his--despite the fact that abusers VERY TYPICALLY go after custody as a way to secure complete access to the victim and eliminate the protective mother from the picture. And notice how Mom is raked over the coals for taking care of her son after an automobile accident. Very typical of the bizarre, cooked up accusations thrown at mothers when abusers are intent on punishing mom and securing access to the child victim.
Psychologist ALAN BLOTCKY is clearly a fathers rights flunky....
http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/03/catholic_priest_ex-ewtn_tv_hos.html
Catholic priest, ex-EWTN TV host, fathered child; he's now in custody fight, accused of abuse
By Greg Garrison on March 25, 2015 at 3:40 PM, updated March 25, 2015 at 4:38 PM
David Stone, 54, formerly known as Father Frances Mary Stone, was host of the TV program "Life on the Rock" on Eternal Word Television Network. He fathered a child born in 2008. The mother was fired from EWTN and Stone was put on long-term leave of absence, according to Jefferson County court documents.
A national group that monitors allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy has focused attention this week on the Alabama case of David Lawrence Stone, a Catholic priest and former EWTN TV host who was arrested in 2013 and charged with sexual abuse of a minor under 12.
The minor he is charged with sexually abusing is his own son, now six years old.
Stone, 54, formerly known as Father Frances Mary Stone, was host of the TV program "Life on the Rock" on Eternal Word Television Network.
In court filings, Stone's attorneys have argued that the allegation of child abuse is false. Stone has been in a lengthy custody battle with Christina Presnell, the mother of his child, according to Jefferson County Court records.
A spokeswoman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, was in Birmingham on Tuesday to discuss the case. She said Bishop Robert J. Baker, head of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, should let people know about the allegation and that the priest still lives in Irondale.
"Even if you believe he's innocent, they should be open about it and let the truth come out," said Barbara Dorris, outreach director for SNAP. She said that since the Catholic Church was rocked by scandal in recent years over accusations of sexual abuse by priests, bishops have vowed to be more open about allegations against priests. "Protect the kids," she said. "The bishops in some states have not been taken to task. This crisis isn't over."
Baker said that Stone no longer is a member of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, the order of priests founded in 1987 by Mother Angelica, who also founded EWTN. Stone no longer lives at the Annunciation Friary in Irondale, Baker said. Stone lives in a rented house in Irondale, according to court documents.
"He's not living in their community," Baker said. "They are following canonical procedures on the case."
The diocese investigated the case and it's now being played out in the judicial system, in both criminal and civil cases in Jefferson County.
"We have investigated, and done everything we're required to do," Baker said. "He is out of the ministry. Everything is pending the outcome of the trials. My understanding is he is saying he is falsely accused. Any of these situations are difficult."
Priest and mother of his child both lost jobs at EWTN
Scott Morro, an attorney for Presnell, said the relationship between Stone and Presnell started when she was working for EWTN. Presnell worked as a human resource coordinator for EWTN, according to court documents. She met Stone in 1998, went to confession with him as her priest and considered him her spiritual adviser, then began a sexual relationship with him in 2001. They kept the relationship secret, but were discovered when she became pregnant. EWTN fired Presnell in 2008 and Stone was put on a long-term leave of absence, court records show.
"She started working there, and she started to be counseled by Dave," Morro said. "That grew into a flirtatious relationship, which grew into a dating relationship, which led to the conception of their child. It was all consensual."
Presnell, 47, was widowed in 1999 after a 13-year marriage and had two daughters and a son with her husband. She also had another son by another father while separated from her husband, then had Stone's son, who was born in 2008, according to court documents.
Stone arrested after mother files complaint of abuse
The sexual abuse case against Stone is still pending in Jefferson County, Morro said. "They're waiting to present it to the grand jury," he said.
According to court documents, Stone had visitation with his son starting in 2010. In May 2011, Presnell said that the boy told her that his father put his finger in the boy's anus, causing him to defecate on the bed. Stone denies that story and says she made it up. She filed a police report. Stone was arrested by Irondale Police on Oct. 9, 2013 and released on $150,000 bond.
Stone does not currently have visitation privileges with his son as a condition of the bond, court records show. He has been fighting for visitation privileges and custody in civil court in Jefferson County.
William Bradford and Amber Ladner, attorneys for Stone on the criminal charge, said the allegation against him is false.
"Mr. Stone's primary concern has always been, and remains today, his son's well being," Bradford and Ladner said in a prepared statement. "The actions of SNAP in recent days are baseless, misguided, and driven by a lack of information as to the true and correct facts regarding Mr. Stone, his son, Ms. Presnell, and the ongoing litigation. Due to this lack of basic understanding, the statement of SNAP is replete with false information regarding the situation and Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone took a leave of absence from the Church prior to his son's birth. It was Mr. Stone who initiated the legal proceedings in Jefferson County Family Court in an effort to gain custody or visitation with his son. This was done with the sole purpose of Mr. Stone having a meaningful father/son relationship with his child. Thereafter, Ms. Presnell prompted the filing of criminal charges against Mr. Stone. Mr. Stone adamantly denies all allegations of any wrongdoing regarding his son, and is of the opinion that the false charges are the result of an effort to gain advantage in the Family Court proceeding. Mr. Stone will continue to press his case for custody and/or visitation, and will vigorously defend himself against all false allegations of criminal conduct. To that end, he continues to look forward to the true facts regarding this situation being brought forth in the courts as soon as possible."
Latest court filings include clinical psychologist's reports
Presnell was held in contempt of court on Feb. 13 by Jefferson County Judge Carnella Greene Norman for not appearing in court for depositions. Morro said that Presnell was taking care of her oldest son who was in a hospital intensive care unit in Tennessee for several days after a car accident, and that she had previously done depositions on the case. Morro filed an appeal of Norman's ruling on March 6.
Morro, a former police officer, said his client's allegations of abuse against Stone are credible.
"These are egregious charges against a man," Morro said. "If I didn't believe they were true, I wouldn't be representing her."
Former Birmingham attorney Mitch Damsky, who represented Stone after his arrest but last year moved to Wyoming, said the abuse allegation may be an effort to gain advantage in the custody dispute. "I really don't think that he did it," Damsky said. "It didn't add up to me."
In the most recent civil court filing today, March 25, a clinical psychologist's reports on both Presnell and Stone were submitted. "Christina's allegation against Dave is highly questionable given the timing and circumstance of it," wrote licensed clinical psychologist Alan Blotcky. "Dave's psychological evaluation does not even hint at a person who is capable of abuse. It is implausible." Blotcky wrote that Stone is "fully capable of being a healthy and competent parent," and recommended that Stone be given visitation. Physical custody for Stone "should be a viable option in this case," he wrote.
But Ladner noted that even if Stone were awarded visitation with his son, it's prohibited in the terms of his bond, and could be delayed pending the outcome of the criminal case.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Judge admits to secret communication with attorney giving father custody (Evans, Georgia)
These kinds of shenanigans are distressingly common. Even in my case, the guardian ad litem, Sandra Fischer Swanson, routinely shared documents with the ex's attorney while "forgetting" to send them to mine. That was in Chautauqua County, New York. And I have known of cases like this one, where the mother lost custody in a secret ex parte hearing. It happened to a very good friend of mine.
http://www.wtoc.com/story/28192794/judge-admits-to-secret-communication-with-attorney-about-custody-order
Judge admits to secret communication with attorney about custody order
Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:26 PM EST Updated: Feb 24, 2015 10:15 PM EST
By Nick Lulli
EVANS, GA (WFXG) - New developments tonight in the child custody case we've been following since last June involving a local judge being looked into by the judicial qualifications committee.
First, the Georgia appeals court said that judge misinterpreted law when he denied a Columbia County mother custody. Then, he said he would consider removing himself from the case because the mother's attorney said he was biased against her.
But, according to court records Judge Daniel "Danny" Craig didn't do that; instead, he suspended all visitation rights of the mom in addition to admitting to secret communications outside the courtroom with the dad's attorney, which allowed the father to arrange the kids' removal from the state. Plus, the two independent custody experts on the case said the mom posed no danger to the children.
Julia Bloodworth, the most recent guardian ad litem on the case, who has two decades worth of experience with children, in an affidavit said the judge coordinated his plans with the father's attorney to remove the children from Augusta, without the mom, the guardian, or her attorney even knowing the kids were gone from school.
The Columbia County mother is revealing her face because she wants the community to understand what she calls injustice.
In a September order, Judge Craig said her children's expression of being “afraid and concerned” to live with their mom was “comparatively profound."
But Judge Craig never presented any evidence in his order of physical or emotional abuse, and the guardian ad litem said she never saw any either.
"No, no, I was not abusing our children," said the mother. "We had a guardian ad litem. She says in her affidavit she spent more time working with our family then any other in her two decades of experience, and there was no concern by her.”
Days after the the most recent order, guardian Julia Bloodworth filed an affidavit with the court.
In it – she said, “In all of my conversations with them, including many phone calls with [the son], neither of the children ever acted or sounded as if they were afraid of their mother or concerned for their personal welfare at their mother's home.” In addition, Bloodworth said it may have been the father who was “manipulating” them through the use of parental alienation - allegations the father's attorney denies.
Bloodworth said she wasn't involved in the drafting of the order at all, which she feels, may go against her contract and order written and signed by the very same judge.
"The guardian who knew our family wasn't allowed to speak," said the mother. "She wasn't heard. And that was the whole point of her being assigned to our case."
In the order, Judge Craig admits to calling one of the the father's three attorney days before the order was issued to make sure the father would be in Augusta for the execution of the order, which would allow him to move the children to Ohio, denying the mom a hearing that's required under Georgia law. $I asked the mom, "the guardian ad litem didn't know? You didn't know? Only your ex-husband's attorneys?"
“And Judge Danny Craig," said mom said.
But Judge Craig signed a certificate of service swearing he'd served all parties with his order before filing it with the clerk's office. The clerk's office time stamp shows it being clocked in at 11:50 in the morning, while Judge Craig's fax time stamp shows it didn't get sent to the mom's attorney until nearly three and a half hours later.
"Our children were already gone out of school, before my attorney was notified," said the mother. "We didn't know. We were the last to know."
That's right: the mom sent her kids to school, and she didn't know they were gone until they didn't get off the school bus.
"[I am] stunned, even though so much has happened that didn't seem right," the mother said. "It's still shocking that it was this blatant."
Judge Craig said he can't comment on this case because it's an active case.
But one of the attorney's for the surgeon ex-husband did agree to speak on the case during an on the record meeting at her Augusta law firm.
Barbara Barnett 'Bobi' Claridge disagrees with the assertion her behavior is considered improper because during the phone call the judge only said:
“Have your client here on a date certain; tell me what that day is.”
Claridge said she was not aware the judge didn't make the same phone call to the mom's attorney.
“I do not know if he did or did not relate that information to Ms. Portnoy," said Claridge.
I then asked if she knew the children were gone before the mom's side even knew; Claridge said she did.
“I was aware the order was issued, my client was told to pick them, and did so," said Claridge.
Upon further investigation into this case, we found in court documents that a previous psychologist guardian also hired by Judge Craig to determine custody for the same children in this case also recommended the children remain in the mother's care.
According to the final divorce order in that case, Judge Craig also “found” that there was no evidence in favor of the mom, thereby totally denying the existence of that psychologist which he had appointed.
http://www.wtoc.com/story/28192794/judge-admits-to-secret-communication-with-attorney-about-custody-order
Judge admits to secret communication with attorney about custody order
Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:26 PM EST Updated: Feb 24, 2015 10:15 PM EST
By Nick Lulli
EVANS, GA (WFXG) - New developments tonight in the child custody case we've been following since last June involving a local judge being looked into by the judicial qualifications committee.
First, the Georgia appeals court said that judge misinterpreted law when he denied a Columbia County mother custody. Then, he said he would consider removing himself from the case because the mother's attorney said he was biased against her.
But, according to court records Judge Daniel "Danny" Craig didn't do that; instead, he suspended all visitation rights of the mom in addition to admitting to secret communications outside the courtroom with the dad's attorney, which allowed the father to arrange the kids' removal from the state. Plus, the two independent custody experts on the case said the mom posed no danger to the children.
Julia Bloodworth, the most recent guardian ad litem on the case, who has two decades worth of experience with children, in an affidavit said the judge coordinated his plans with the father's attorney to remove the children from Augusta, without the mom, the guardian, or her attorney even knowing the kids were gone from school.
The Columbia County mother is revealing her face because she wants the community to understand what she calls injustice.
In a September order, Judge Craig said her children's expression of being “afraid and concerned” to live with their mom was “comparatively profound."
But Judge Craig never presented any evidence in his order of physical or emotional abuse, and the guardian ad litem said she never saw any either.
"No, no, I was not abusing our children," said the mother. "We had a guardian ad litem. She says in her affidavit she spent more time working with our family then any other in her two decades of experience, and there was no concern by her.”
Days after the the most recent order, guardian Julia Bloodworth filed an affidavit with the court.
In it – she said, “In all of my conversations with them, including many phone calls with [the son], neither of the children ever acted or sounded as if they were afraid of their mother or concerned for their personal welfare at their mother's home.” In addition, Bloodworth said it may have been the father who was “manipulating” them through the use of parental alienation - allegations the father's attorney denies.
Bloodworth said she wasn't involved in the drafting of the order at all, which she feels, may go against her contract and order written and signed by the very same judge.
"The guardian who knew our family wasn't allowed to speak," said the mother. "She wasn't heard. And that was the whole point of her being assigned to our case."
In the order, Judge Craig admits to calling one of the the father's three attorney days before the order was issued to make sure the father would be in Augusta for the execution of the order, which would allow him to move the children to Ohio, denying the mom a hearing that's required under Georgia law. $I asked the mom, "the guardian ad litem didn't know? You didn't know? Only your ex-husband's attorneys?"
“And Judge Danny Craig," said mom said.
But Judge Craig signed a certificate of service swearing he'd served all parties with his order before filing it with the clerk's office. The clerk's office time stamp shows it being clocked in at 11:50 in the morning, while Judge Craig's fax time stamp shows it didn't get sent to the mom's attorney until nearly three and a half hours later.
"Our children were already gone out of school, before my attorney was notified," said the mother. "We didn't know. We were the last to know."
That's right: the mom sent her kids to school, and she didn't know they were gone until they didn't get off the school bus.
"[I am] stunned, even though so much has happened that didn't seem right," the mother said. "It's still shocking that it was this blatant."
Judge Craig said he can't comment on this case because it's an active case.
But one of the attorney's for the surgeon ex-husband did agree to speak on the case during an on the record meeting at her Augusta law firm.
Barbara Barnett 'Bobi' Claridge disagrees with the assertion her behavior is considered improper because during the phone call the judge only said:
“Have your client here on a date certain; tell me what that day is.”
Claridge said she was not aware the judge didn't make the same phone call to the mom's attorney.
“I do not know if he did or did not relate that information to Ms. Portnoy," said Claridge.
I then asked if she knew the children were gone before the mom's side even knew; Claridge said she did.
“I was aware the order was issued, my client was told to pick them, and did so," said Claridge.
Upon further investigation into this case, we found in court documents that a previous psychologist guardian also hired by Judge Craig to determine custody for the same children in this case also recommended the children remain in the mother's care.
According to the final divorce order in that case, Judge Craig also “found” that there was no evidence in favor of the mom, thereby totally denying the existence of that psychologist which he had appointed.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Failure of criminal, family courts to share information lead to needless domestic violence deaths (Canada)
So the authorities have known about the problems for more than 10 years, but virtually nothing happens. Why? Who benefits from the status quo?
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1276898/failure-of-criminal-family-courts-to-share-information-puts-domestic-violence-victims-at-risk/
February 1, 2015 Updated : February 1, 2015 | 9:24 pm
Failure of criminal, family courts to share information puts domestic violence victims at risk
By Staff Torstar News Service
A decade-long refusal to share information between family courts and criminal courts is putting domestic violence victims at risk, with deadly consequences.
The two court systems operate as “separate silos,” with different databases, filing cabinets and timelines, which has led to judges imposing contradictory court orders on families, according to experts and the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee.
Lack of communication between the two courts has been flagged to the government as a serious problem since as early as 2004, Torstar News Service has found.
Julie Craven is one victim who was caught between the two judicial systems. She paid the ultimate price: the murder of her only child at the hands of her abusive ex-husband during a court-ordered visit.
In March 2006, Jared Osidacz, 8, was stabbed in the heart and neck with such force the blade bent and the knife broke. His father, , left him for dead and fled to Craven’s house, where he attacked her in the dark with a 12-inch butcher knife while still covered in their son’s blood, Craven said. Police officers fatally shot Osidacz as he tried to slit her throat.
At the time, the criminal court had ordered Osidacz to stay away from Craven, but the family court had granted him unsupervised access to Jared every weekend, according to the coroner’s inquest.
“How is it possible that from Monday to Friday we were considered to be in danger of this man, but on the weekends my son was allowed to be alone and unsupervised with him?” Craven said.
“The hypocrisy of it makes me sick.”
Since Jared’s death, changes in the law, multi-million-dollar funding boosts, enhanced training programs and public education campaigns have been rolled out across the province in a bid to prevent domestic violence. But, the information void between the family and criminal courts still exists, experts told Torstar News Service.
Domestic violence victims like Craven are still getting “lost in a maze of unco-ordinated court proceedings,” said Dr. Peter Jaffe, of the University of Western Ontario’s centre for research and education on violence against women.
“The family court and the criminal court have to get their act together,” Jaffe said.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said she “respectfully declined” an interview with Torstar News Service to discuss this issue.
In a written statement, the spokesperson confirmed there is no shared database between the courts. He said the ministry has been actively working on ways to improve communication between the two, including launching a pilot project in Toronto in 2011 to bring both judicial systems together into one courtroom with one judge exclusively for domestic violence cases. The project is still being evaluated, the spokesperson said.
Pamela Cross, legal director of Luke’s Place, a support and resources centre for abused women, said receiving contradictory orders from different courts is “a nightmare” for victims.
“Having their lives chopped up and siloed by these two systems is frustrating and they don’t understand why the two courts can’t talk to each other, or which order trumps the other,” she said.
“It’s just nonsensical.”
A conflicting standard of proof in the two courts muddies the waters when it comes to sharing information, said Jaffe, a member of the death review committee.
The family court operates on a balance of probabilities, which means the judge has to believe one person’s story is more likely than the other. This standard of proof is easier to reach than that required at the criminal court, where defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The onus is on victims or their lawyers to alert a family court judge to matters that are before the criminal court, Jaffe said. And if the accused denies the allegations, it is up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.
Sometimes, they get it wrong.
In 2004, a 2-year-old girl died of blood loss and hypothermia after her father slit her throat and dumped her beneath a tree on a rural Ontario road during a court-ordered visit. At the time of the killing, he was on probation for an assault involving the toddler’s mother and she had a restraining order against him, the death review committee’s 2004 report said.
The committee, which has investigated the province’s domestic homicides for more than a decade, wrote in its first ever report that “there appears to be no formal mechanisms in place to foster communication between the family court and criminal court.”
Last year, the committee’s report said there was an “ongoing urgency” to identify high-risk cases going before the two courts.
While the fight to change the system continues, Julie Craven will quietly mark her son’s birthday alone this April. He would have been 18.
It has been nine years since Jared Osidacz’s death. Craven still suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor’s guilt.
“You go through so much grief, you just don’t think you’re going to survive,” Craven told Torstar News Service.
She said she lost faith in the justice system when the family court granted her ex-husband unsupervised access to Jared three weeks after he viciously assaulted her.
“I was sleeping with a knife under my pillow, but they didn’t care. I told them my son was at risk, but they didn’t listen,” she said.
On the night Jared died, as Andrew Osidacz was holding Craven at knife-point, he started taunting her with details about the little boy’s death.
“He told me Jared’s last words were: ‘Please don’t kill me daddy,’” Craven said over the phone, through sobs.
The most frustrating part for members of the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee is that “three-quarters of the tragedies we see are preventable,” Jaffe said.
“It’s not a mystery as to why it happens; it’s a mystery as to why professionals miss the opportunities to prevent it.”
The ‘one family — one judge’ answer:
One possible solution to the family and criminal courts information crisis is creating a ‘one family — one judge’ system for domestic violence cases.
The government has been actively investigating this option since mid-2011 when it launched a pilot project for an Integrated Domestic Violence Court at 311 Jarvis St. in Toronto.
It is the first integrated court of its kind in Canada and it aims to improve communication between the criminal and family justice systems for families dealing with domestic violence. For a case to be referred to the court, there must be a criminal domestic violence charge and a family court case filed at two of four Toronto courthouses.
In the past four years, the pilot project has heard only 48 cases, according to Rachel Birnbaum, an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario who is evaluating the project.
Birnbaum described the lack of communication between the family and criminal courts as a “historical problem” and said many American states had created integrated domestic violence courts to solve the issue.
If this model is to provide the answer in Ontario, it needs to progress beyond a pilot program, she said. “If the catchment area is expanded, this could be one way of addressing this issue.”
The Ministry of the Attorney General spokesperson said the pilot project was still being evaluated. The government would only consider expanding the project once it has identified whether improvements are needed, he said.
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1276898/failure-of-criminal-family-courts-to-share-information-puts-domestic-violence-victims-at-risk/
February 1, 2015 Updated : February 1, 2015 | 9:24 pm
Failure of criminal, family courts to share information puts domestic violence victims at risk
By Staff Torstar News Service
A decade-long refusal to share information between family courts and criminal courts is putting domestic violence victims at risk, with deadly consequences.
The two court systems operate as “separate silos,” with different databases, filing cabinets and timelines, which has led to judges imposing contradictory court orders on families, according to experts and the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee.
Lack of communication between the two courts has been flagged to the government as a serious problem since as early as 2004, Torstar News Service has found.
Julie Craven is one victim who was caught between the two judicial systems. She paid the ultimate price: the murder of her only child at the hands of her abusive ex-husband during a court-ordered visit.
In March 2006, Jared Osidacz, 8, was stabbed in the heart and neck with such force the blade bent and the knife broke. His father, , left him for dead and fled to Craven’s house, where he attacked her in the dark with a 12-inch butcher knife while still covered in their son’s blood, Craven said. Police officers fatally shot Osidacz as he tried to slit her throat.
At the time, the criminal court had ordered Osidacz to stay away from Craven, but the family court had granted him unsupervised access to Jared every weekend, according to the coroner’s inquest.
“How is it possible that from Monday to Friday we were considered to be in danger of this man, but on the weekends my son was allowed to be alone and unsupervised with him?” Craven said.
“The hypocrisy of it makes me sick.”
Since Jared’s death, changes in the law, multi-million-dollar funding boosts, enhanced training programs and public education campaigns have been rolled out across the province in a bid to prevent domestic violence. But, the information void between the family and criminal courts still exists, experts told Torstar News Service.
Domestic violence victims like Craven are still getting “lost in a maze of unco-ordinated court proceedings,” said Dr. Peter Jaffe, of the University of Western Ontario’s centre for research and education on violence against women.
“The family court and the criminal court have to get their act together,” Jaffe said.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said she “respectfully declined” an interview with Torstar News Service to discuss this issue.
In a written statement, the spokesperson confirmed there is no shared database between the courts. He said the ministry has been actively working on ways to improve communication between the two, including launching a pilot project in Toronto in 2011 to bring both judicial systems together into one courtroom with one judge exclusively for domestic violence cases. The project is still being evaluated, the spokesperson said.
Pamela Cross, legal director of Luke’s Place, a support and resources centre for abused women, said receiving contradictory orders from different courts is “a nightmare” for victims.
“Having their lives chopped up and siloed by these two systems is frustrating and they don’t understand why the two courts can’t talk to each other, or which order trumps the other,” she said.
“It’s just nonsensical.”
A conflicting standard of proof in the two courts muddies the waters when it comes to sharing information, said Jaffe, a member of the death review committee.
The family court operates on a balance of probabilities, which means the judge has to believe one person’s story is more likely than the other. This standard of proof is easier to reach than that required at the criminal court, where defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The onus is on victims or their lawyers to alert a family court judge to matters that are before the criminal court, Jaffe said. And if the accused denies the allegations, it is up to the judge to decide who is telling the truth.
Sometimes, they get it wrong.
In 2004, a 2-year-old girl died of blood loss and hypothermia after her father slit her throat and dumped her beneath a tree on a rural Ontario road during a court-ordered visit. At the time of the killing, he was on probation for an assault involving the toddler’s mother and she had a restraining order against him, the death review committee’s 2004 report said.
The committee, which has investigated the province’s domestic homicides for more than a decade, wrote in its first ever report that “there appears to be no formal mechanisms in place to foster communication between the family court and criminal court.”
Last year, the committee’s report said there was an “ongoing urgency” to identify high-risk cases going before the two courts.
While the fight to change the system continues, Julie Craven will quietly mark her son’s birthday alone this April. He would have been 18.
It has been nine years since Jared Osidacz’s death. Craven still suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and survivor’s guilt.
“You go through so much grief, you just don’t think you’re going to survive,” Craven told Torstar News Service.
She said she lost faith in the justice system when the family court granted her ex-husband unsupervised access to Jared three weeks after he viciously assaulted her.
“I was sleeping with a knife under my pillow, but they didn’t care. I told them my son was at risk, but they didn’t listen,” she said.
On the night Jared died, as Andrew Osidacz was holding Craven at knife-point, he started taunting her with details about the little boy’s death.
“He told me Jared’s last words were: ‘Please don’t kill me daddy,’” Craven said over the phone, through sobs.
The most frustrating part for members of the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee is that “three-quarters of the tragedies we see are preventable,” Jaffe said.
“It’s not a mystery as to why it happens; it’s a mystery as to why professionals miss the opportunities to prevent it.”
The ‘one family — one judge’ answer:
One possible solution to the family and criminal courts information crisis is creating a ‘one family — one judge’ system for domestic violence cases.
The government has been actively investigating this option since mid-2011 when it launched a pilot project for an Integrated Domestic Violence Court at 311 Jarvis St. in Toronto.
It is the first integrated court of its kind in Canada and it aims to improve communication between the criminal and family justice systems for families dealing with domestic violence. For a case to be referred to the court, there must be a criminal domestic violence charge and a family court case filed at two of four Toronto courthouses.
In the past four years, the pilot project has heard only 48 cases, according to Rachel Birnbaum, an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario who is evaluating the project.
Birnbaum described the lack of communication between the family and criminal courts as a “historical problem” and said many American states had created integrated domestic violence courts to solve the issue.
If this model is to provide the answer in Ontario, it needs to progress beyond a pilot program, she said. “If the catchment area is expanded, this could be one way of addressing this issue.”
The Ministry of the Attorney General spokesperson said the pilot project was still being evaluated. The government would only consider expanding the project once it has identified whether improvements are needed, he said.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Dad granted unsupervised access to kids he molested; convinced authorities that Mom was "crazy" (British Columbia, Canada)
Sickening, but all to typical of the way mothers are treated as crazy and/or liars by the police, family courts, and others in authority--all so Daddy can have unfettered access to his victims.
UNNAMED DAD
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/father-given-unsupervised-access-to-children-he-molested-1.2442896
Exclusive
Father given unsupervised access to children he molested
Woman discovered spouse was sexually abusing their kids, but he convinced authorities she was 'crazy'
CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2013 5:30 PM PT| Last Updated: Nov 28, 2013 8:16 PM PT
A B.C. Supreme Court judge reviewing evidence from a custody dispute determined that the father of four children sexually and physically abused three of them, contrary to the findings of a flawed Vancouver Police Department investigation.
The mother of the children, who was awarded sole guardianship and custody in the 2012 court judgment, is now suing the province, saying it was negligent and acted in bad faith in allowing her former partner unsupervised access to the children during the dispute.
The mother's lawsuit against the province is currently on trial at B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver and has already gone on for more than 80 days. #In addition, the mother is asking the Vancouver Police Department to reopen its investigation into allegations her former partner sexually abused their three children. The department closed its investigation in 2010.
"I want what is proper law. It's nothing vindictive, or anything like that," said the woman, whose identity cannot be revealed in order to protect her children.
"My ex is — he obviously is a very dangerous person. Like he didn't stop. I would like to see him properly prosecuted... That's all, because there's no sign that he's gonna stop unless something like that happens."
She says her world was flipped upside down two months after she and her husband separated in the fall of 2009 when, acting on only slight suspicion, she asked her three eldest children whether their father ever did anything to them.
She said she was expecting her children to respond with blank looks and confusion, but instead they began blurting out disturbing allegations that shocked her.
"The only thing I can think of now is Jekyll and Hyde, because… I just actually never could have fathomed what he was doing," she told CBC News in an exclusive interview.
A 'Kafkaesque' nightmare
She called the Ministry of Children and Family Development's helpline the next day, and called the Vancouver Police Department several times to seek assistance.
An order of the court was issued in October of that year, restraining the father from any contact with the mother or the children.
However, in December 2009, Justice Paul Walker — the same judge who ruled in the couple's later custody dispute — varied this order to allow the father supervised access to the children for specific hours.
Throughout this period, the father, along with his family and friends, made calls to Ministry workers and eventually the police, registering concerns about the mother's mental capacity.
In his custody dispute judgment three years later, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker deemed the behaviour "a baseless attempt to discredit her."
However, at the time, the authorities decided the frantic mother was unreliable, and also likely in need of a mental assessment.
The Ministry took the kids away from their apparently unstable mom, and placed them in foster care, with an aunt and uncle, in December 2009.
After a series of interviews with the parents and children that December and January 2010, the senior investigating VPD officer, along with officers from the RCMP Behavioural Sciences unit, determined that the allegations against the father were unfounded, and closed the investigation.
Later that year, a social worker began allowing the father unsupervised access, contrary to the original 2009 court order, which their mom says allowed the abuse to continue.
'The more she protested, the more she was labelled as being crazy.' - Jack Hittrich, lawyer for the mother
"It was, it was like, one professional described it: 'Kafkaesque' is the best term that comes to mind. It's as if the people involved were just twisting everything," the mother said.
Jack Hittrich, the mother's lawyer, says the Ministry of Children and Family Development was negligent, reckless, and acted in bad faith.
"When mom was frantically trying to convince the ministry that the sexual abuse allegations were real, they basically labelled her as crazy. And the more she protested, the more she was labelled as being crazy," he said. "It's a horrific nightmare." Hittrich doesn't think the mother could have accomplished more by protesting more, and that institutional failures must be corrected.
"Until the child sex abuse lens is refined and there's more sensitive processes in place, children are at risk," he said.
VPD officer 'smitten' with father
A former RCMP superintendent who reviewed the police interrogation videos, testified in court that the VPD investigation was deeply flawed.
"I think the police formed the opinion that the mother had no credibility, therefore they didn't react and follow the investigation the way it should have been followed," said Glenn Woods, who worked for the RCMP for 35 years.
Woods, who spent 11 career years as a criminal profiler, said after watching the footage, he believes the senior officer involved in the case developed negative attitudes early on about the mother — and positive feelings about the dad.
"I used the word 'smitten.' I just got a sense that the interaction between the officer and the father was almost at times kind of a social interaction, as opposed to a police interview or interrogation."
Woods told the CBC that Vancouver Police should have fresh eyes look at the file, saying "I think an effort has to be made to take another look at this case."
In his judgment on the custody dispute last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker agreed with Woods' critique of the police interrogation, writing "I was struck by how quickly and easily [the father] took control of the interview. It appeared to me that the officer was enamoured of (the father) in some way."
In his conclusion after reviewing footage of what he characterized as several flawed interviews, Walker wrote "I have determined that I can place no weight on the conclusions reached by the VPD… that there was no merit in the sexual abuse allegations."
Walker also determined, from the evidence presented, that the father sexually abused three of his children, exposed them to inappropriate sexualized knowledge, and physically assaulted them and their mother.
He gave full custody to the exonerated mother, and said a restraining order would be required against the father.
Father maintains innocence
CBC News spoke with the father, who maintains that his ex-wife fabricated the sex abuse claims in order to gain sole custody of their children.
"By itself, that allegation is nuclear. You light off that allegation and there's radioactivity forever. It never, ever goes away," he said.
The senior Vancouver Police officer who cleared the father refused comment, referring CBC News to the department.
Sgt. Randy Fincham, media relations officer for the department, wrote to the CBC in an email, "The judge is more than entitled to have an opinion about the quality of the police investigation" and "in the event that new evidence is brought forward in any investigation, the police retain the ability to reopen, continue or advance their investigation."
Beyond that, he stated the department "is not at liberty to discuss an ongoing court process, as it may impact the final outcome of the proceedings."
Mr. Justice Walker's decision was rendered last year. The Vancouver police are not party to the current negligence lawsuit against the province.
Sgt. Fincham did not answer questions about whether the case merits a review, or what should be done about the father in the community, given the judge's finding that he sexually abused his three children.
The Minister of Children and Family Services, Stephanie Cadieux, wrote in an email it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the case, as it is before the courts, stating "the safety and well-being of children is always the Ministry's first priority."
UNNAMED DAD
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/father-given-unsupervised-access-to-children-he-molested-1.2442896
Exclusive
Father given unsupervised access to children he molested
Woman discovered spouse was sexually abusing their kids, but he convinced authorities she was 'crazy'
CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2013 5:30 PM PT| Last Updated: Nov 28, 2013 8:16 PM PT
A B.C. Supreme Court judge reviewing evidence from a custody dispute determined that the father of four children sexually and physically abused three of them, contrary to the findings of a flawed Vancouver Police Department investigation.
The mother of the children, who was awarded sole guardianship and custody in the 2012 court judgment, is now suing the province, saying it was negligent and acted in bad faith in allowing her former partner unsupervised access to the children during the dispute.
The mother's lawsuit against the province is currently on trial at B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver and has already gone on for more than 80 days. #In addition, the mother is asking the Vancouver Police Department to reopen its investigation into allegations her former partner sexually abused their three children. The department closed its investigation in 2010.
"I want what is proper law. It's nothing vindictive, or anything like that," said the woman, whose identity cannot be revealed in order to protect her children.
"My ex is — he obviously is a very dangerous person. Like he didn't stop. I would like to see him properly prosecuted... That's all, because there's no sign that he's gonna stop unless something like that happens."
She says her world was flipped upside down two months after she and her husband separated in the fall of 2009 when, acting on only slight suspicion, she asked her three eldest children whether their father ever did anything to them.
She said she was expecting her children to respond with blank looks and confusion, but instead they began blurting out disturbing allegations that shocked her.
"The only thing I can think of now is Jekyll and Hyde, because… I just actually never could have fathomed what he was doing," she told CBC News in an exclusive interview.
A 'Kafkaesque' nightmare
She called the Ministry of Children and Family Development's helpline the next day, and called the Vancouver Police Department several times to seek assistance.
An order of the court was issued in October of that year, restraining the father from any contact with the mother or the children.
However, in December 2009, Justice Paul Walker — the same judge who ruled in the couple's later custody dispute — varied this order to allow the father supervised access to the children for specific hours.
Throughout this period, the father, along with his family and friends, made calls to Ministry workers and eventually the police, registering concerns about the mother's mental capacity.
In his custody dispute judgment three years later, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker deemed the behaviour "a baseless attempt to discredit her."
However, at the time, the authorities decided the frantic mother was unreliable, and also likely in need of a mental assessment.
The Ministry took the kids away from their apparently unstable mom, and placed them in foster care, with an aunt and uncle, in December 2009.
After a series of interviews with the parents and children that December and January 2010, the senior investigating VPD officer, along with officers from the RCMP Behavioural Sciences unit, determined that the allegations against the father were unfounded, and closed the investigation.
Later that year, a social worker began allowing the father unsupervised access, contrary to the original 2009 court order, which their mom says allowed the abuse to continue.
'The more she protested, the more she was labelled as being crazy.' - Jack Hittrich, lawyer for the mother
"It was, it was like, one professional described it: 'Kafkaesque' is the best term that comes to mind. It's as if the people involved were just twisting everything," the mother said.
Jack Hittrich, the mother's lawyer, says the Ministry of Children and Family Development was negligent, reckless, and acted in bad faith.
"When mom was frantically trying to convince the ministry that the sexual abuse allegations were real, they basically labelled her as crazy. And the more she protested, the more she was labelled as being crazy," he said. "It's a horrific nightmare." Hittrich doesn't think the mother could have accomplished more by protesting more, and that institutional failures must be corrected.
"Until the child sex abuse lens is refined and there's more sensitive processes in place, children are at risk," he said.
VPD officer 'smitten' with father
A former RCMP superintendent who reviewed the police interrogation videos, testified in court that the VPD investigation was deeply flawed.
"I think the police formed the opinion that the mother had no credibility, therefore they didn't react and follow the investigation the way it should have been followed," said Glenn Woods, who worked for the RCMP for 35 years.
Woods, who spent 11 career years as a criminal profiler, said after watching the footage, he believes the senior officer involved in the case developed negative attitudes early on about the mother — and positive feelings about the dad.
"I used the word 'smitten.' I just got a sense that the interaction between the officer and the father was almost at times kind of a social interaction, as opposed to a police interview or interrogation."
Woods told the CBC that Vancouver Police should have fresh eyes look at the file, saying "I think an effort has to be made to take another look at this case."
In his judgment on the custody dispute last year, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker agreed with Woods' critique of the police interrogation, writing "I was struck by how quickly and easily [the father] took control of the interview. It appeared to me that the officer was enamoured of (the father) in some way."
In his conclusion after reviewing footage of what he characterized as several flawed interviews, Walker wrote "I have determined that I can place no weight on the conclusions reached by the VPD… that there was no merit in the sexual abuse allegations."
Walker also determined, from the evidence presented, that the father sexually abused three of his children, exposed them to inappropriate sexualized knowledge, and physically assaulted them and their mother.
He gave full custody to the exonerated mother, and said a restraining order would be required against the father.
Father maintains innocence
CBC News spoke with the father, who maintains that his ex-wife fabricated the sex abuse claims in order to gain sole custody of their children.
"By itself, that allegation is nuclear. You light off that allegation and there's radioactivity forever. It never, ever goes away," he said.
The senior Vancouver Police officer who cleared the father refused comment, referring CBC News to the department.
Sgt. Randy Fincham, media relations officer for the department, wrote to the CBC in an email, "The judge is more than entitled to have an opinion about the quality of the police investigation" and "in the event that new evidence is brought forward in any investigation, the police retain the ability to reopen, continue or advance their investigation."
Beyond that, he stated the department "is not at liberty to discuss an ongoing court process, as it may impact the final outcome of the proceedings."
Mr. Justice Walker's decision was rendered last year. The Vancouver police are not party to the current negligence lawsuit against the province.
Sgt. Fincham did not answer questions about whether the case merits a review, or what should be done about the father in the community, given the judge's finding that he sexually abused his three children.
The Minister of Children and Family Services, Stephanie Cadieux, wrote in an email it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the case, as it is before the courts, stating "the safety and well-being of children is always the Ministry's first priority."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)