Violent dad takes family court judge as hostage because he's mad about child custody (Finney County, Kansas)

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.

Four-year-old girl murdered by custodial dad let down by courts, social workers (United Kingdom)

As so often happens, not one word as to how the murdered girl's mother was erased from her life before Daddy assumed custody.


Once again, the courts, social workers just fawn all over Daddy and do nothing until it's too late.


The killer dad is identified as CARL WHEATLEY.


http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/toddler-murdered-by-father-let-down-by-courts-and-social-workers/


11 May 2016 at 1:20pm


Little girl murdered by father let down by courts and social workers


Carl Wheatley was found guilty of murdering his daughter Alexa-Marie Quinn.


By Catherine Ellis


A four-year-old girl who was killed by her father was let down by social workers and local authorities, according to a report into her death.


Alexa-Marie Quinn was murdered by her father Carl Wheatley in March 2014, less than three months after Bedford Borough Council granted him custody.


Local agencies have been criticised in the report for "shortcomings" in their response to the suspicion that Alexa-Marie may have been at risk of harm.


What we know about Alexa-Marie


Alexa-Marie Quinn was found dead at her home in March 2014.


She had been beaten to death by her father.


She had suffered more than 60 injuries, including a bruise from her stomach to her ankles, and two lost teeth when she died in March 2014.


The four-year-old had been in Wheatley's care for the three months leading up to her death, after previously being cared for by foster parents.


Concerns had been raised about Wheatley's contact with Alexa-Marie by her foster carers in Bedford in May 2013.


Further worries about her contact with Wheatley had come up at a review the following month.


The trial of Alexa-Marie's father


Serious Case Review: Findings A Serious Case Review is launched when a child dies or is seriously injured where abuse or neglect is thought to be involved, to find out what lessons can be learned by local professionals and organisations to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.


The Serious Case Review published by Hertfordshire's Safeguarding Children's Board revealed a number of findings. These include:


Finding: There were weaknesses in management within and between different local authorities and social work teams in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire boroughs. These led to a lack of full understanding of potential risks that Alexa-Marie was exposed to.


Finding: There were shortcomings in the response to the suspicion that child protection risks may have left Alexa-Marie at harm.


Finding: All parties in the courts did not appropriately consider the implications of a psychiatric report on Carl Wheatley from September 2013.


Recommendations


The Serious Case Review made a number of recommendations for local agencies involved in the case to safeguard children in the future.


These included: reviews of training given to social workers and lawyers, reviewing case management arrangements for student social workers and looking into current guidance on children's contact arrangements following a move to a new permanent placement.


Phil Picton, chairman of the Safeguarding Children Board, said that Alexa-Marie was "a very vulnerable little girl" who was placed into the care of a man who went on to kill her. 


During Alexa-Marie’s last days, Carl Wheatley deliberately misled professionals and resisted the efforts of those who were concerned for his daughter’s safety and tried to contact her.


All parties involved have cooperated fully with the Serious Case Review process and the Safeguarding Children Board has robust systems in place to monitor the implementation of the report’s recommendations.


– Phil Picton, Hertfordshire Safeguarding Children Board


Last updated Wed 11 May 2016

Dad gets full child custody after murder charges dropped for killing child's mother...over child custody (Spokane, Washington)

Headline is actually incorrect if you read through article. Dad JON RITCHEY was charged with murder in the kidnapping and point-blank, shot-in-the-face murder of the mother. The motive: she apparently wanted child custody (and for good reason, given the kind of person he obviously is).
And now the corrupt, FR-infested legal system has dropped the murder charges and given the killer FULL CUSTODY. Daddy, we're told, is all cool, 'cause he's taking one of the fathering classes--probably one of those "classes" designed to help violent felons get custody.
Sounds unbelievable, but this sh** is happening every day now.
Unfortunately, the legislation remedy suggested is all wrong. We don't need laws guaranteeing grandparents visitation. We need laws blocking killers and violent felons from getting any custody rights. Period.




http://www.khq.com/story/31883537/sins-of-the-father-man-who-gave-assistance-to-girlfriends-killer-will-get-to-raise-their-son


Sins of the Father: Man who gave assistance to girlfriend's killer will get to raise their son


Posted: May 03, 2016 9:25 PM EDT Updated: May 04, 2016 12:01 AM EDT


by Hayley Guenthner, KHQ Local News Anchor & Reporter




SPOKANE, Wash. - In a few short weeks, the 4-year-old son of a murdered Spokane woman will be taken away from the only parents he knows, and given to the man who gave criminal assistance to his mother's killer.




"It's like losing my best friend," said David Wilson.




March 11, 2013, was the worst day imaginable for David and Carrie Wilson. Carrie had to identify her daughter by her tattoos.




"It has taken me 2.5 years just to be able to just look at her picture and just see her and not the big hole in her face," Carried said.




Court documents paint a brutal picture of Heather's final moments of life. Heather was kidnapped and handcuffed. She was able to briefly break free, only to be caught by her killer near SFCC and shot at point-blank range in the face. 
"To tell you the truth, I didn't want to live. I wanted to die," Carrie said.




Police only added to their agony when they told the Wilsons who was behind Heather's death. Detectives arrested the father of Heather's child, Jon Ritchey, along with his uncle, Gary Stoddard. Prosecutors charged them both with murder. Court documents point to the possible motive: Who would get to raise the couple's little boy.
"He's the one who had everything to lose when Heather said she was going to take him to court for custody," Carrie said. "Seems like two weeks after that, she was gone."




With the child's mother dead and his father in jail, David and Carrie were all he had. Slowly, together, they started rebuilding their lives. That was until that deep wound was reopened.




Jon Ritchey's murder charge was dropped. In its place was a plea deal for rendering criminal assistance in Heather's murder. With credit for time served, Ritchey was a free man. And the worst was yet to come for Heather's family. Jon Ritchey wanted his child back.
After a four day trial, a judge awarded him full custody.




"If he would have been a drug addict who got clean, you know, I understand that part," Carried said. "But he was involved in a murder, and of the child's mother. Where should he have any rights? He took those rights from Heather. She never gets to see her little boy again."




Right now, Ritchey gets weekly play dates and therapy sessions with his son. Overnight visits will come in June and by July, the boy will be out of the place he's called home for the past three years.


"I felt like I was being torn up from the inside out," David said. "He's my child."




The law disagrees. The court decided Mr. Ritchey is currently able to meet his son's basic needs and has the capacity for providing appropriate parenting and care for him. They said he's employed and even enrolled himself in a nurturing father's class since his release from jail.




Spokane Family Law Attorney David Crouse has been doing this job for more than 20 years and said this is how our state works.




"There's absolutely no question that you do have to move mountains now to prove that biological parent is unfit," he said.




Crouse said Washington judges have to look at the current status of the biological parent.




"It makes a lot of people involved in the system sad," he said.




But not as sad as Carrie and David who will soon live again with that all too familiar ache of loss.




The grandparents are working on an appeal but they're financially strapped. If the appeal doesn't work, the only way Carrie and David will see the boy again is if Jon Ritchey agrees to that.


Grandparents in Washington don't have rights to their grandkids like other states. The group Grandparents Rights of Washington State is pushing initiative 1431.




It would give grandparents the ability to petition the court for visitation. They need 250,000 signatures showing support by July 8. If they succeed, it will be on the November ballot.

Family Court gives abusive, deadbeat dad sole custody (Australia)

Parental "alienation" is just gaslighting bullsh**. Notice Mom was accused of it by a guy who beat her up. Meanwhile, it's DAD who has deprived her of contact for two years.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-court-ruling-violent-father-given-sole-custody-of-child-20160405-gnz3pr.html

Family Court ruling: violent father given sole custody of child

April 17, 2016 - 12:29PM

Rachel Olding

A violent man was granted sole custody of his son because he was deemed to be more capable than the boy's mother, who was rebuked for allegedly trying to turn the child against his father.

Among the reasons the Family Court gave for choosing the father to be sole carer is because he was unemployed and, therefore, could "devote all his time to the care of the child", compared with the mother, who worked part-time.

In an extremely unusual case, Judge Stewart Austin found the parents were so toxic towards each other that it was in the child's best interests to eliminate one from his life entirely.

Judge Austin chose in favour of the father, despite the man having numerous domestic violence convictions, and said the mother's relationship with the boy, who was 10 at the time of the judgment, could be "revived" later in life.

Critics of the Family Court say the 2014 judgment, which is about to be challenged in court, is part of a disturbing trend whereby the court sees a parent who is supposedly alienating the other parent as worse than an abusive parent.

The parents, given the pseudonyms Mr and Ms Perri, have been in and out of the Family Court since their relationship ended in 2009.

Each blames the other for the boy's distress.

"[The child] feels he has to choose between his parents and this pressure is psychologically distressing," a family consultant said in a report relied upon in Judge Austin's judgment. "The conflict of loyalty he feels is so strong he emotionally decompensates​ and his behaviour deteriorates."

In 2011, at a time Mr Perri was on an apprehended violence order and a good behaviour bond for domestic violence offences, the court ordered the boy live with his father and have supervised visits with his mother.

The boy's behaviour deteriorated to the point where he was severely disturbed and was self-harming, running away from school and hurting other children.

In the most recent judgment, Judge Austin decided to cut all the boy's contact with his mother, including letters and phone calls.

He found that the boy's deterioration was due to the looming court case, rather than the father's deficiency, and it would be exacerbated by disrupting his living situation.

He said Ms Perri's capacity to care for the child was inferior, partly because she worked part-time and did not have a detailed plan for improving the boy's life.

She was also reluctant to believe her son's claim that his older half-sibling had sexually assaulted him, despite the police believing it was probably true.

She removed the half-sibling from their home, but believed the assault could not have happened because the boy was away at the time of the alleged incident.

Judge Austin said violence at the hands of the father, which stopped when the parents separated, was "in the past" and, therefore, was not a "pre-eminent issue".

Speaking to Fairfax Media, the mother said she felt like she had been told to simply "get over it".

"It was like the violence just wasn't relevant," Ms Perri, who has not seen her son in two years, said. "I had to be cross-examined by my ex-husband [because he couldn't afford legal representation] and it terrified me. I couldn't look at him."

She plans to return to court, alleging Mr Perri has contravened one of the orders by not keeping her informed of his current phone number.

The chief executive of the Victims of Crime Assistance League, Robyn Cotterell-Jones, said the Family Court was so out of touch with the effects of domestic violence that a royal commission was needed.

"It makes a farce out of all things supportive if the Family Court sides with the perpetrator and awards the children one tried to protect to the perpetrator," she said. "When a woman leaves a man because his behaviour ... is unacceptable or criminal, they think they are doing what's right and almost always have naive assumptions that society will support them to be safe."

Domestic violence survivors deserve better model (New Hampshire)

Great article.

http://www.fosters.com/article/20160410/NEWS/160419950

Domestic violence survivors deserve better court model

By Crystal Paradis Posted Apr 10, 2016 at 3:15 AM Updated at 11:00 AM

My sister was lucky when her husband tried to kill her 18 months ago. As crazy as that sounds, it’s true. That attack against her life gave her courage to finally call for help and escape nearly two decades of abuse. Hearing this story devastated us, her loving family who suspected for decades but hoped it was just our imagination, but it also made us whole again by allowing us back into her life.

Before escaping through a window, she tried to calm her kids, my 11-year-old niece and screaming, crying 6-year-old nephew, who had just witnessed his father strangling his mother. “Who knew your own dad could turn out to be a bad guy?” he asked. As she waited outside in the freezing cold Grafton night, hiding in the dark in her pajamas, for the one and half hours it took the police to arrive after she called for help, safety seemed so far away.

After a nightmare of months on the run, moving with her kids from one safe house to another, my sister was also luckier than many survivors of domestic violence to hear her abuser proclaimed “guilty” on several counts in a courtroom, further validating her choice to finally escape and save her family from a monster.

But as anyone who’s been through a court case involving family violence can tell you, the story doesn’t end with the criminal verdict. Her attacker will likely be going to jail, but he’s still a free man throughout the sentencing and appeal process. Another year or more of hiding from the man who promised to kill her if she ever told.

With the next hearing came another judge, to decide if and how often she’d have to bring her kids to see a man that terrified them all. She was warned that supervised visitation was the most likely ruling, and was the best order she could hope for. Although she still feared for her life and the safety of her children, asking for no visitation at all was likely to get her branded as an “unreasonable” parent, and risked the judge awarding unsupervised visitation.

Just like that, she was pushed back into a compromise of keeping her kids at risk to avoid a potentially more serious and deadly consequence. This is how our court systems re-victimize survivors of domestic violence, every day.

In domestic violence cases, there are usually at least two judges involved, sometimes three. The criminal judge oversees the criminal elements of the case including orders of protection/restraining orders, charges of violent behavior, etc.; their driving motivation is typically perpetrator accountability and victim safety. The family court judge oversees matters of custody and visitation; their driving motivation is typically ensuring equal access to children, if it can be done safely. If Child Protective Services gets involved, there can be a third judge whose focus is typically on child safety and best interests.

These disparate motivating factors and separation of access to various case specifics often results in frustrating rulings. These fractures in our court systems are leaving victims unsafe and children exposed to potential harm.

My fierce niece sits outside the visitation room every week, refusing to see the man who hurt her mother. My nephew enters hesitantly, looking for the good-behavior version of his dad, trying to figure out the answer to the question he asked the night of his father’s last attack: Who knew your own dad could turn out to be a bad guy?

It’s overwhelming for already traumatized victims to go through our court systems. Those who feel completely unsafe by court mandates abandon trust in the system and flee, with or without their children. This, in turn, can result in charges against them for either kidnapping or child abandonment. It’s a lose-lose scenario for these survivors, even after they reach out to ask for help.

About a third of all reported violent crimes are cases of family violence. It is a significant enough problem to warrant its own process. And in some courts, that’s exactly what is happening.

In Portland, Oregon, family courts look very different. They follow a “One Family/One Judge” model where a single judge, familiar with the unique challenges of families and children exposed to domestic violence, is presented with all relevant information pertaining to a family. That one judge is empowered to make a timely ruling, weighing the safety and best interests of all parties.

Portland is one of four cities selected for participation in the Family Court Enhancement Project, a collaborative project of the Office of Violence Against Women, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the Battered Women’s Justice Project and the National Institute for Justice. These courts are pioneering new approaches in making custody decisions.

According to a press release announcing the project, it seeks to address “concerns from domestic violence survivors, advocates, and court staff that family courts are struggling to adequately consider the physical and emotional safety of children (and their parents) in child custody cases where domestic violence is present.” This is just one initiative of domestic violence court reform.

Several other courts and lead judges have adopted the NCJFCJ’s Project ONE approach, a holistic multi-court collaborative model that puts the family at the center to achieve best outcomes. The key principles of Project ONE include: One Family-One Judge; just and timely decisions; respect; collaboration; system accountability; victim safety and empowerment. This is what it looks like to rebuild a broken system.

Other communities are calling for and creating, a better way. New Hampshire children and families deserve a better way, too. Let’s look at what is working in other communities and ask for help in bringing their successes home to our own courts. It will take those directly affected by the failings of the system and the support of people outside of this traumatic cycle to step up, speak up and lift up our brave survivors. When I hug my sister now, I do it tightly, trying in some way to keep her safe.

When I hug my niece and nephew, I do it gingerly, as if they might break. But I know that they are stronger than all of us. And when they get around to ruling the world, I have no doubt they’ll do it better than we ever did. Until then, we’re all waiting on the courts.

Crystal Paradis is a writer, feminist, marketing professional and serial community organizer. She lives and works in Portsmouth and can be reached at cfparadis@gmail.com.

Violent custodial dad hands over "sole care" of 3-year old to violent wife, child beaten to death (Boston, Massachusetts)

Another violent father who never should have received custody. Like a lot of guys, he seems to have increasingly coupled with the women who deserved him.

If this had been a custodial mother, she would be accused of failure to protect and end up doing hard time. But since it's a dad, well, he'll probably just play the Clueless Dad card and pay no penalty whatsoever.

By the way, this is a familiar theme with abusive custodial fathers. Since their motivations are all about punishment/control of the mother, and not about what's best fot the child or any desire to actively parent, they frequently dump the child on the new (resentful) wife or girlfriend.

Dad is identified as DAVE WHYTE.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/30/kenai-whyte-was-child-left-danger/ApI0rd9rADTrExHytGR5eP/story.html?event=event25

Kenai Whyte was a child left in danger

SUZANNE KREITER/GLOBE STAFF

Ashley Young is the mother of 3-year-old Kenai Whyte.

By Yvonne Abraham globe columnist
 March 30, 2016

Ashley Young knew her son was in danger of being hurt. She was wrong, it seems, about who would do the hurting.

Young thought little Kenai Whyte’s father, Dave Whyte, was a danger to him — and she had good reason to think so. But prosecutors say it was Whyte’s wife, Marie Buie, who beat the child horribly on Jan. 31. The 3-year-old died two days later.

The court documents and police reports are gut-wrenching reading. From the day he was born, the toddler who loved firetrucks and Lightning McQueen was surrounded by threats and fear, the adults in his life battling and abusing each other, sometimes over him.

“I feel as if my child is in danger with his father,” Young wrote in a 2013 filing. “If he can beat on me and abuse me, I feel he can do the same to my son.”

Kenai’s father left a trail of police reports and restraining orders testifying to his abusiveness. Young said Whyte’s violence drove her to a shelter for domestic abuse victims. And later, she took out restraining orders against Whyte for pushing her against a wall and for visiting Kenai’s day care center to try to get her new address. Marie Buie surrendered to police for allegedly causing harm to Kenai Whyte, who died Feb. 2.

And she wasn’t the only one afraid of him. Police called to Whyte’s home in August of 2013 reported that he had pulled Buie’s hair and cut her hand. A year later, he was charged with assault and battery after he grabbed Buie by the throat. His mother, too, took out a restraining order against Whyte around the same time, saying her son had threatened to kill her.

Buie was trouble, too, according to police reports. She was twice arrested for assault and battery: once for stabbing a neighbor and once for hitting Whyte with a bottle, biting him, and pushing him down some stairs because, she told police, she was frustrated that he had left her to care for Kenai alone.

As ever in these impossible cases, it fell to the state to find a path for Kenai through the morass. The Department of Children and Families had been watching him since he was a baby, and checkups showed he was doing fine. A spokeswoman would not say whether DCF ran criminal background checks on the parents’ partners, citing privacy concerns. New rules announced Monday will make those checks mandatory.

If the probate judges mediating custody disputes between Young and Whyte knew about the father’s propensity for violence, they were apparently unperturbed by it. Whyte was granted full legal custody and half-physical custody of Kenai. Young, representing herself before the court (Whyte had an attorney), tried to change that late last year, but she missed a court date after her baby was born prematurely. So Whyte prevailed.

It is possible that, presented with this cavalcade of dysfunction, the court came to the measured (but mistaken) conclusion that Kenai was safe in his father’s home. It is possible, too, that what happened here is what happens too often when family court judges are presented with allegations of domestic abuse: The victim of the abuse is disbelieved and penalized. Their fragile state in the courtroom can make them seem disruptive or irrational. Worse, abusers can convince judges that the victims are using abuse claims to gain greater custody rights.

Courts can focus too hard on the breach between the parents, losing track of who is hitting whom — and whether the violence also endangers the child.

“Judges seem to care more about parental alienation,” said David Adams, head of Emerge, a counseling program for abusers. “So much so, that some victims’ attorneys aren’t even raising domestic violence in custody disputes.”

Whatever the reason, Young lost her bid to have her son spend less time in his father’s home. So there Kenai was, alone with Buie on the January night prosecutors say she brutally beat him.

You would like to think his parents fought this hard over their child because they both treasured him and wanted to protect him. But then you have to confront the realization that even a little boy as loved as Kenai Whyte seems to have been left in harm’s way to die.

For Domestic Violence Survivors, Family Court Becomes Site of Continued Abuse

Great article at Truthout. Go to link see the rest.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35101-for-domestic-violence-survivors-family-court-becomes-site-of-continued-abuse

For Domestic Violence Survivors, Family Court Becomes Site of Continued Abuse

Sunday, 06 March 2016 00:00

By Victoria Law, Truthout | Report

When Kate finally escaped her abusive husband, she thought that the violence and terror were over. What she learned instead is that, when children are involved, escape and safety become even more difficult as abusive ex-partners use child custody and the family court system to continue their harassment and abuse.

Judge allows state lawsuit filed by protective mother to go forward (San Francisco, California)

Dad is identified as DANIEL CROCKET.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/07/scorched-earth-battle-continues-in-norcal.htm

'Scorched-Earth' Battle Continues in NorCal

By PHILIP A. JANQUART

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A judge dismissed federal, but not state, claims against officials in a Northern California county arising from a "scorched-earth" child custody battle and allegations of government corruption.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on Thursday granted Del Norte County officials' motion for summary judgment on a woman's federal claims of deprivation of familial association, but allowed state claims to proceed.

The lawsuit stems from the allegedly unwarranted seizure of minor twin daughters, Jane Does 1 and 2, and their temporary placement by Child Welfare Services into foster care after their mother took them into a neighboring county "without legal authority to do so," breaking a court order to return them to her ex-husband and failing to appear at a Feb. 3, 2012 custody hearing.

Seeborg described the fight between Jennifer Brown and ex-husband Daniel Crocket as a "scorched-earth" battle for custody of their daughters that dates back to January 2012, when Brown and her father took her children to neighboring Humboldt County for medical exams.

Believing that Crocket had molested the girls, Brown and her father Barry Brown, a former county investigator, took them to a Humboldt County hospital for Sexual Assault Response Team exams.

Brown said she took them to Humboldt County because Child Welfare Services in Del Norte County did not respond adequately to the sexual abuse allegations. Del Norte County is the farthest northwest county in California, on the Oregon border. Its county seat and only incorporated city is Crescent City.

Brown says her father informed Del Norte County officials by letter and telephone that he was taking the children from the county for their own safety, in accordance with California Penal Code § 278.7(a), which states that "criminal penalties for child abduction do not apply to those who have legal custody of the child, [and] have 'a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm.'"

Del Norte County District Attorney Jon Alexander nonetheless issued arrest warrants for the Browns.

Crocket was cleared of the sexual molestation allegations and the court granted him primary custody of the girls. Brown and her daughters sued Crocket, Alexander, Del Norte County and others for several claims under state and federal law, including deprivation of familial association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Brown claims that Alexander, whom she had informed of the girls' whereabouts by telephone, omitted material information from affidavits in support of the arrest warrants for child abduction, and that he did so because Crocket contributed to his campaign fund.

The defendants sought judgment on the pleadings on Jan. 13, 2016.

Although Brown claims she spoke with Alexander and told him where the girls were and why they were there, Seeborg said she nonetheless was obligated to follow court orders.

"Jennifer's contact with Alexander did not relieve her of the obligation to comply with the custody and visitation order or her duty to appear at the Feb. 3 custody hearing," Seeborg wrote in the march 3 order. "Accordingly, even if Alexander submitted false information in support of the application for the protective custody warrant, those statements were unnecessary to the finding of probable cause.

Specifically, even it Jennifer has complied with California Penal Code § 278.7(a), such compliance relieved her of the prospect of criminal punishment for child abduction, not her obligation to comply with the custody and visitation order. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that a reasonable jury could conclude the county defendants impermissibly interfered with plaintiffs' right to familial affiliation; defendants are entitled to summary judgment." (Citations omitted.)

Seeborg ruled that Brown's remaining state claims may proceed, and retained jurisdiction over the case on the basis of "judicial economy and convenience."

Bureaucrats defend social workers after sexually abusive father gets unsupervised access (British Columbia, Canada)

Very typical of the way fathers rights ideology as taken over. Mothers are labeled vindictive crazy liars no matter what.

UNNAMED DAD.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/judge-bc-sexual-abuse-errors-b-j-province-1.3401088

B.C. defends social workers after abusive father gets unsupervised access

Ministry of Children and Families appeals ruling that blamed officials for allowing child to be abused

By Natalie Clancy, CBC News

Posted: Jan 13, 2016 9:07 AM PT| Last Updated: Jan 13, 2016 3:02 PM PT

The family members can't be identified to protect the children, three of whom a B.C. Supreme Court justice determined were sexually abused by their father.

Natalie Clancy Investigative Reporter | CBC News Vancouver

Natalie Clancy is an award-winning journalist with a 25 year track record for breaking stories. Her investigations have exposed how Canadian girls are recruited by ISIS, sexual harassment in the RCMP, and forced the B.C. government to improve safety for nurses.

B.C.'s Children's Ministry is defending its actions in a case that involved a father who a judge ruled in a civil case sexually abused a child while the toddler was in the care of the ministry.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled earlier in 2015 that the province's child protection service was negligent when it gave the father unsupervised access to his children after the three eldest made disclosures of sexual abuse.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development filed its reasons for appealing the decision this week.

The factum, submitted to the B.C. Court of Appeal, says that social workers relied on several experts including a pediatrician, psychologist and an expert on parenting when granting the unsupervised visits.

Allegations about the father were investigated by Vancouver police in this case, who concluded there was "no evidence to support J.P's allegations that B.G. molested their children." As a result no criminal charges were laid in this case.

The document says the judge who ruled in the case made errors in law and ignored key evidence when he condemned the ministry's actions.

Stop 'keeping secrets for Daddy'

The factum paints an ugly picture of the mother referred to only as J.P., citing an incident when she pepper-sprayed her ex-husband, brother and sister-in-law in the home where the children were staying.

As a result the children were moved to a foster home.

Social workers were also concerned about her repeated attempts to interview the children about their father's abuse.

The document says during a supervised visit she "forcibly held (her daughter) in her lap while telling her that (she) needed to tell the truth and cannot keep secrets. J.P. stated that (her daughter) was 'keeping secrets for daddy,' and that her actions were 'ruining our lives.'"

The government says J.P. refused to meet with social workers to talk about the "traumatizing effect that J.P.'s behaviour would have on a five-year-old child."

Mother's lawyer responds

J.P.'s lawyer Jack Hittrich says he will file a full response to the province's appeal in April. In the meantime he highlighted his concerns to CBC News.

"What is astounding about this factum is that the central findings of fact are completely ignored," said Hittrich.

"They chose to align themselves fully with the (father)," says Hittrich, but the ministry denies that.

"In this case mom does everything she can to protect these children. The more she cries the more she's labelled as crazy!"

Concerns mother would harm children

The factum argues the judge was wrong to rule social workers acted in bad faith, suggesting the evidence shows they properly assessed the risks posed to the children, and made decisions based on the information available at the time.

They feared the children were endangered by their mother, and at one point concern was raised by a police investigator that the mother might even kill the children.

The ministry's appeal argues that at that time experts advised it was unlikely the children had been sexually abused, and that their mother needed mental health intervention before she could safely regain custody.

Social workers had no way of knowing a judge would later rule that the father had abused the children and the mother had no mental health issues.

The province says the actions of social workers were unfairly judged in hindsight.

By June of 2011 the director of child welfare was aware the three eldest children had made disclosures of sexual abuse, but their statements were inconsistent, and Vancouver police had found no physical evidence to support charges.

Ministry relied on expert findings

The judge ruled social workers did not properly assess the risk to the children, but the document says the ministry relied on several reports, including:

■Pediatrician found no physical evidence of sexual abuse.
■Child psychologist found low probability that sexual abuse occurred.
■Parental capacity expert concluded sexual abuse was unlikely.
■Child psychologist concluded sexual abuse was unlikely.
■Parental capacity expert recommended father get custody.
■Child psychologist recommended father get custody.
■Parental capacity expert said mother required mental health intervention.
■Child psychologist found mother required psychiatric assessment.

The document says the mother refused to go for a recommended psychiatric assessment while the father followed orders to work with a parenting coach, who wrote positive reviews.

The trial judge ruled the VPD investigation was flawed and the experts the ministry relied on were not reliable, and social workers ought to have known that.

The ruling found one ministry employee's pervasive distrust of J.P. influenced others, and his failure to include sexual abuse allegations in a key document amount to misfeasance.

But the province says the evidence does not support such a serious finding.

The document says the plaintiff's view that a "multi-institutional conspiracy" led social workers to make a decision that ultimately allowed a father to molest his toddler in the ministry's care is simply not supported by evidence.

Being wrong does not mean negligence

But the factum does not dispute that sexual abuse occurred after the father was granted unsupervised access.

"Whether the sexual abuse in fact occurred is a much different question from whether social workers reasonably and in good faith" says the document.

"The fact that the trial judge eventually concluded … that the director was 'wrong' in her assessment of risk does not render all actions of the director that preceded … negligent and malicious."

The province declined to comment on the appeal because it is still before the courts.

4-year-old boy ordered to visit drug-addicted father who previously threatened boy's mother with shotgun (Australia)

The brutal triumph of the fathers rights movement--and the death of decency and common sense.

Gosh, what could possibly go wrong here?

Dad is identified as "Mr Tierney."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/boy-4-ordered-to-visit-ice-dad/story-e6frg97x-1227551336821

Boy, 4, ordered to visit ice dad

The Australian
October 01, 2015 12:00AM
Nicola Berkovic
Legal affairs correspondent

A four-year-old boy has been ­ordered by a judge to spend at least two hours a fortnight with his father despite evidence the ­father had been using the drug ice and served jail time for allegedly threatening the mother with a shotgun.

The father had also previously threatened to slit his own throat with a knife and had taken the boy without consent at least twice and spirited him interstate.

Federal Circuit Court judge Warwick Neville made ­orders in Canberra for the boy to spend “no less than two hours per fortnight” with the father at a contact centre.

The father, known as “Mr Tierney”, had been fighting the mother to spend regular, substantial time with his son and had ­denied using ice.

But his drug screen showed he had been using methylamphetamine and the prescription painkiller Endone, also dubbed “hillbilly heroin”.

He also denied previously threatening the ­mother with a shotgun and ­instead said that he had been threatening to shoot himself.

Mr Tierney urged the court to allow him to care for his son every second weekend and every Tuesday after school.

But the mother, who was ­legally represented, said the boy should live with her and spend two hours a fortnight with the ­father while supervised at a contact centre.

Judge Neville said the father’s previous threats of violent self-harm and positive drug test “alone warranted” that his time with the child “should be supervised”.

He made interim orders for fortnightly supervised contact until a report from a court- ­appointed psychiatrist could be prepared.

It is not clear whether the mother of the four-year-old boy felt uneasy about her son spending time with his father.

However, Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston said she came across many cases in which ­mothers felt pressured to agree to court orders they did not feel were in their children’s best interests to avoid being seen as trying to alienate the other parent.

“No court should ever allow a parent to make that decision” and lawyers should fight harder to ­ensure they did not do so, she said. “We see it all the time and we hear it all the time and it’s heartbreaking,” she said.

“These are parents who want to protect their children from clearly dangerous partners, who are being advised by their own legal representation, because of the way the system currently works, to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their own children.”

She questioned how super- ­visors at a children’s contact ­centre could guarantee the safety of the boy if the father arrived under the influence of ice or armed with a weapon.

The West Australian mother of “Abbey” — a 17-year-old girl who committed suicide after being forced to spend time with her pedophile father — told The Australian yesterday that she had felt pressured to consent to family law orders for her daughter to have contact with her ex- husband even though her “gut said no”.

“You are thrown into this system where you have to consent,” she said. “My gut said no ... but there is pressure from all around you. It’s the best-case scenario in a no-win situation.”

How abusive dad got custody in seven minutes (Worcester, Massachusetts)

The ONLY reason such a travesty could have taken place is the utter triumph of Fathers Rights in the family court system. Fathers are coddled and indulged despite histories of domestic violence, severe mental illness, drugs/alcohol abuse, evidence of child abuse...none of it matters in terms of gaining and retaining custody.

We've reported on custodial dad RANDALL LINTS before.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/15/seven-minutes-that-sealed-boy-fate/lLqEG1IEo4aDzBbFEZFXfI/story.html

7 minutes that set a child’s course for tragedy

Hearing that gave a Hardwick boy to father who allegedly beat and starved him was terse, incurious, disastrous

By Michael Levenson Globe Staff August 15, 2015

WORCESTER — It took seven minutes of rustling papers and perfunctory questions uttered in rapid-fire monotone, and the deal was done. A Worcester probate judge had transferred custody of a young boy from the grandmother who had raised him almost since birth to the father whom he barely knew. A year later, the father would be charged with nearly killing the boy by beating him and refusing him food and water.

Even though family members now say that the father had a history of violence and mental illness, and though he had only recently acknowledged that he was the father, Judge Lucille A. DiLeo never questioned Randall Lints’s fitness to raise his son.

And no party to the case suggested she should.

“OK, I think we have everything,” DiLeo said in a matter-of-fact voice, after reading aloud the main points of the custody papers, and ensuring that they had been signed by the father, mother, and grandmother standing before her. “Thank you, everybody.”

Legal experts say such quick approval is typical in cases like this one.

There was no dispute over the father’s petition for custody, because the family members had signed it before the brief hearing on June 30, 2014, a recording of which was obtained by the Globe. The judge simply ratified the family consensus. There was no one in court to speak specifically for the child.

The tragic fallout from the custody ruling has raised questions about whether probate courts can do more to protect the children whose lives their decisions most deeply affect. ‘They’re all standing there, they all agree, they all signed off on it, and that’s it.’

“We must reform our probate and family courts so that, in every case, the interests of children outweigh the desires and preferences of adults,” said Gail Garinger, a former juvenile court judge who heads the state Office of the Child Advocate. “Children in our courts need experienced professionals who will listen to them and help identify their genuine needs, skilled advocates for their interests, and decision-makers who will make the welfare of the children before them their highest priority.”

Other legal specialists, even as they acknowledge the horrors allegedly inflicted by Lints, recoil at the notion that judges should intervene in cases in which an entire family is in agreement about who should gain custody.

“The idea that the state gets to tell you whether you have it together enough to bring up your child is really a little bit scary,” said Mary E. O’Connell, a professor of child and family law at Northeastern University School of Law.

Indeed, in a custody case that is not disputed, the judge must presume that the adults have the child’s best interests at heart, said Edward M. Ginsburg, a retired probate court judge who served 25 years in Middlesex County.

“In this case, there is nothing that the judge should have done that she didn’t do: They’re all standing there, they all agree, they all signed off on it, and that’s it,” Ginsburg said. “In that context, it’s an administrative function.”

The 7-year-old boy has been in a coma since July 14, when paramedics carried him from Lints’s home in Hardwick with bruises across his body and burns on his feet.

He weighed just 38 pounds, having lost 12 to 15 pounds in recent weeks. Authorities say Lints had kept his son in his bedroom and starved and dehydrated him to stop him from urinating on the floor.

The case has focused intense scrutiny on the state Department of Children and Families, which had been monitoring the boy since February when it received back-to-back complaints that Lints was neglecting the child.

Officials have acknowledged that a state social worker visited the home just two weeks before the boy fell into a coma and his father called 911.

A year earlier, DiLeo had made what would turn out to be the fateful decision to transfer custody of the boy. In court, she ticked off the nuts and bolts of the deal: The maternal grandmother, who had been the boy’s legal guardian since 2008, would hand custody to Lints, 26.

Reading from the agreement, she confirmed his promise to enroll the boy in counseling and add him to his Medicaid plan. She affirmed the visitation rights of the boy’s mother, Amber Loiselle, who had been estranged from her son for two years.

No one present raised any objections that might have prompted DiLeo to question the arrangement. The judge sealed the deal with a series of questions to each family member.

“Did you sign here? Did you review it with your lawyer before you signed it? Understood it? Signed it freely and voluntarily?” And, finally, “Thank you.”

DiLeo could have appointed an attorney for the child or an independent advocate, called a guardian ad litem, to assess whether placing him with the father was in the boy’s best interests, said Sanford N. Katz, a professor emeritus at Boston College Law School and a specialist in family law.

“The focus of the case has to be on the child, not on the parents or anybody else,” Katz said. “Even though all the parties may agree the father is the one, an independent look at this might say no.”

DiLeo did not respond to several messages.

Still, it would have been highly unusual for her to intervene when there was no dispute over custody, said Robin M. Deutsch, the director of the Center of Excellence for Children, Families and the Law at William James College in Newton.

“If people don’t bring forward a concern, it’s really not up to the court to go on a fishing expedition,” Deutsch said. “It would be very inappropriate to say, ‘Wait a moment. Let’s get an evaluation.’ Instead, you say, ‘How great that they agreed; how wonderful.’ ”

If DiLeo had scrutinized the case, she might have discovered cause for concern.

In 2007, when Lints was first told that he was going to be a father, “He would call me and threaten to cut [the baby] out of my stomach,” Amber Loiselle told the Globe last month.

A year later, a judge in Fitchburg granted Loiselle a restraining order against Lints after he allegedly shoved her to the ground. Lints was not listed on the boy’s birth certificate, and the boy was told that his father was dead, according to relatives.

Lints only became involved in his son’s life in 2013, after he was sued by the state to provide child support and was ordered to take a paternity test, court records show.

Lints’s mother, Tina LaValley, said she warned her son, who has bipolar disorder and borderline schizophrenia, not to seek custody of the boy.

“I says, ‘You don’t want to put yourself in that situation,’ ” LaValley told NECN. “[He said], ‘I don’t want nobody calling me a deadbeat dad. I’m not going to be a deadbeat dad. That is my son. I’m going to raise my son.’ ”

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.

Social workers violate court order, so dad molested kids during unsupervised visitation (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)

Very typical of so-called child protection agencies that are too often controlled by and/or heavily influenced by fathers rights and pro-pedophile types. This is right by the playbook. Label the protective mother as mentally ill and give Daddy a free pass to rape the kids with no interference.

http://www.timescolonist.com/watchdog-has-no-confidence-in-b-c-ministry-s-review-of-child-sex-abuse-case-1.2003010

Watchdog has 'no confidence' in B.C. ministry's review of child sex abuse case

The Canadian Press July 16, 2015 11:09 AM

VICTORIA - British Columbia's children's minister has promised a review after social workers violated a court order and allowed a father who had molested his kids unsupervised visits.

Stephanie Cadieux said Thursday her ministry will examine all the policy, practice and human resource concerns raised by a scathing B.C. Supreme Court ruling.

"This family, and the rest of British Columbia, deserve to know the child welfare system is responsive and accountable for the decisions it makes," Cadieux told the legislature as the Opposition New Democrats demanded she apologize.

The province's children and youth representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, said she has "no confidence" in the ministry's ability to investigate itself.

"This is a child welfare ministry that for some time has felt that it doesn't have to answer to independent oversight or to a court," she said in an interview. "They're not capable of holding each other to account. They do not have the structures to do that."

Turpel-Lafond, who heads the independent body that oversees the child welfare system, said she wants to participate in the review or see a third party hired to do it.

The ministry said it was working with the Public Service Agency to determine what kind of staff conduct review would work best, and details would be announced later.

Justice Paul Walker said in a written decision released Tuesday that the ministry showed "reckless disregard" when it falsely accused a mother of being mentally ill and removed four children from her care in 2009.

Social workers failed to investigate the kids' claims that their father had sexually abused them and knowingly violated a court order banning unsupervised visits, the ruling said.

Turpel-Lafond said the ministry needs to take immediate action against the workers named in the judgment and examine all other child welfare cases on which they worked.

She said the ministry's decision to eliminate the provincial director of child welfare between 2007 and 2011 created a system akin to the "Wild West" and that even now the director has no power over regional bosses.

Social workers employed by the government are not required to register in the B.C. College of Social Workers, meaning they are not regulated by a professional body, Turpel-Lafond said.

Children's Ministry spokesman Sheldon Johnson said all child protection workers must take specialized university courses and get on-the-job training including interviewing kids who may have been sexually abused. He said workers must have the skills required by the college although they don't need to register.

Johnson said the ministry cannot comment on the individuals named in the judgment due to privacy legislation.

The mother's lawyer, Jack Hittrich, has said that a team leader involved in her case, William Strickland, is still employed by the ministry.

In the legislature, NDP Leader John Horgan questioned how many other court orders the ministry had ignored.

"How many other children are being put at risk because the government believes it's above the law?" he said.

Walker concluded in 2012 that the father physically and sexually abused the couple's three eldest children and gave the mother sole guardianship.

In his decision released Tuesday, Walker determined that the father had also molested his youngest child while the couple's kids were in ministry care.

The ministry has not said yet whether it plans to appeal the ruling.

Family Court Judge throws kids in juvenile center for not "being nice" to abusive father (Oakland County, Michigan)

This is not uncommon among abusive fathers in custody fights. They piss and moan about how they are being "alienated," then viciously retaliate by having kids locked up in juvenile centers, psych hospitals, rehab facilities and the like where they are vulnerable to additional abuse. Pretty much proves it's all about control/punishment and not building a relationship to your children.

Note that the fathers rights-brainwashed judge absolutely refuses to even listen to the kids reports of domestic violence in the home.

Dad is identified as OMER TSIMHOHI, who, incidentally, is so concerned about his kids that he left the country.

Typical to the Bill Crosby affair in that a man is believed over four other people who are not adult males.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsimhoni-judge-lisa-gorcyca-juvenile-detention_559e25f5e4b0967291557f38

Judge Throws 3 Kids In Juvenile Center For Not Being Nice To Their Dad
'You Have No Manners'

Kate Abbey-Lambertz Detroit Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/10/2015 | Edited: 07/10/2015 07:35 AM EDT

Three young siblings caught in their parents' custody fight were berated by a Michigan judge and sent to juvenile detention after they refused to have lunch with their dad.

Omer Tsimhoni and Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni's 9-year-old daughter, and their 10- and 15-year-old sons, have been incarcerated at a juvenile center for more than two weeks, collateral damage in their divorced parents' court battle.

The kids have been locked up since a June 24 hearing before Oakland County Circuit Judge Lisa Gorcyca to arrange visitation with their parents. The children told the judge they didn't want to spend time with their dad, who has a job in Israel but comes to the Detroit area often. Rather than listen to the children's reasons for avoiding their father, the judge belittled and threatened them, according to a hearing transcript first posted by Fox 2 Detroit.

Gorcyca imposed the harsh punishment after the older Tsimhoni son obeyed the judge's command to apologize -- but not to his father. “He’s violent and he -- I saw him hit my mom and I’m not gonna talk to him,” the teen said. Tsimhoni denied hitting his ex in an interview with the New York Observer, and claimed his former wife made up the story and convinced their kids it was real.

Gorcyca ignored the teen's allegation and found him guilty of civil contempt. After praising the father effusively, she called the son a "defiant, contemptuous young man."

"You’re supposed to have a high IQ, which I’m doubting right now," Gorcyca told the boy, according to the transcript. "You have no manners.”

With coaxing from their attorneys, the two younger Tsimhoni siblings each apologized and said they would try to connect with their dad. Gorcyca ordered them to have a pleasant lunch with their father -- or they'd be incarcerated.

“Do you like going to the bathroom in front of people?" she asked the girl, threatening to send her to detention for her birthday.

Gorcyca said she would use security cameras to keep track of the children's behavior. After hearing the judge's warnings, the sister and younger brother said they would rather be sent to juvenile detention with their older sibling.

“Every single adult in this courtroom thinks you have been brainwashed," Gorcyca told them. She said they were like Charles Manson cult members.

Gorcyca sentenced all three children to a youth shelter. The shelter holds three dozen people, said George Miller, director of the Oakland County Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the center.

The judge banned the mother from visiting and ordered that the siblings be "kept away from each other as much as possible." Gorcyca set a review of the punishment for Sept. 8, but said the father may request an earlier hearing if the children start getting along with him.

“When you can follow the court’s direct order and have a normal, healthy relationship with your father, I would review this,” Gorcyca said. "It might be three years. It might [not] be till you’re 18."

Gorcyca won't comment on an open case, a staffer in her office said.

Jennifer Lord, an attorney who belongs to the growing Facebook group supporting the Tsimhoni kids, said judges aren't supposed to "adjudicate how a child feels about his family."

"Family judges, they're the ones who are supposed to be listening to the children," she said.

Tsimhoni and Eibschitz-Tsimhoni declined interview requests. Omer Tsimhoni wrote in an email that he hopes to eventually have a healthy relationship with his kids.

"I am hurt but mostly very sad for my children," he said. "I love them and miss them."

"I cannot understand something like that can even happen in this country," Eibschitz-Tsimhoni told Fox 2. "I want them back home."

Outrage appears to be growing as news of the punishment spreads. A small group protested in front of the courthouse Wednesday afternoon. Petitions calling for the judge’s firing and for the release of the children had more than 2,000 signatures Thursday afternoon.

Kristen Staley, associate director of youth justice policy at the Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency, said she believed the judge acted within her authority. But she said she had concerns about placing non-offenders in a detention center set up for delinquents.

Ronn Torossian, a friend of Tsimhoni's current wife, dismissed public anger over the case, saying the transcript of last month's hearing gives a skewed view of complex divorce proceedings that fill eight volumes.

“This is not a case of, ‘These kids would not have a meal with their father so they were sent away,’” Torossian said. “That’s ignoring five years in court. … There’s been a lot of inappropriate conduct by the mother throughout the years.”

The divorce case began in 2009, after Omer Tsimhoni moved to Israel. Each parent claims the other has been dishonest and is trying to take the children.

Omer Tsimhoni's lawyer contends his ex-wife violates court orders and doesn't allow the children to see their father. Maya Eibschitz-Tsimhoni's attorney says she feels threatened by her ex-husband and fears for the children's safety.

U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland in 2010 described all three kids as "intelligent, sociable, and pleasant." He said the oldest had a “shy, reserved and polite personality."

Eibschitz-Tsimhoni's attorney has filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the children’s release, which Gorcyca is set to consider next week.

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."

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.

"Visit violent dad in prison---or join him" (Australia)

Very good article from Australia.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/visit-violent-dad-in-prison-or-join-him/story-fni0cx12-1227357563275

‘Visit violent dad in prison - or join him’ 

 LIA HARRIS
The Sunday Telegraph May 17, 2015 12:00AM

AT the age of five she watched her father stab her mother in a carpark as horrified bystanders struggled to subdue him.

In the years since the terrifying attack in 2007, the girl’s mother, who almost died of her injuries, says her daughter has been forced to make regular visits to him against her will.

“She doesn’t see him as her father, she sees him as the man who tried to kill her mother,” Victims of Crime Assistance League vice-president Howard Brown said.

The girl and her traumatised mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are now on the run from authorities for failing to appear at custody hearings because they fear for their lives, Mr Brown said.

According to victims’ groups and experts, their story is just one of hundreds in which children are being forced by the courts to visit violent and abusive parents.

“There’s this belief that the father is more important than the worst of his behaviour.” VOCAL chief executive Robyn Cotterell-Jones said she handled such cases “every single day” and in some cases the children were so distressed that they became suicidal.

“They don’t want to talk to anyone because no one seems to help them. They start to struggle at school and start to get aggressive with mum because she’s the only one who’s safe to do that with,” Ms Cotterell-Jones said.

“They’ll come home after two or three weeks with the father and they bash into the mother and hate her because the father has told them to.

“I’ve had cases in which a psychologist has recommended the child stop seeing the father but the court order still forces them to.

“There’s this belief that the father is more important than the worst of his behaviour.”

University of Sydney Faculty of Education and Social Work Associate Professor Lesley Laing said although laws were amended in 2011 to put children’s safety above equal parenting rights, it was not being put into practice in the courts.

“The law has changed to say that exposure to domestic violence and child abuse should be the top consideration, but for many women that’s very hard to prove,” Ms Laing said.

“There’s no onus on men to prove the kids are safe, he doesn’t have to prove that he’s changed.”

“As soon as the woman alleges the children are unsafe, the spotlight then turns onto her and her emotional health. Very little is asked of the fathers.

“There’s no onus on men to prove the kids are safe, he doesn’t have to prove that he’s changed.”

“I spoke to women who have had to drag screaming children to meetings with their fathers but are worried if they don’t do that then they’ll lose the children altogether for defying court orders.”

The issue has long been a concern, according to Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia executive officer Karen Willis, who said it was another example of courts “favouring the offenders”.

“The trauma impact of witnessing domestic violence has terrible impacts on the subsequent adults, and the idea that offending behaviour between parents has no impact on the children is just wrong,” she said.

“The thought of having to visit someone who has traumatised you is traumatic.

“We see plenty of matters where women are forced to hand over their kids to people they know are violent.

“The kids need to come first.”

Dr Laing said all the women she interviewed during her research into the topic had been abused, often physically, in front of the children, and had all experienced failings in the system.

One woman said the Family Court told her the children’s father, who was charged with several assaults and breaching AVOs, “has to see his children” — despite them witnessing him “knock her to the ground with a baby in her arms”.

Another woman told her: “I had already made up my mind that I didn’t want the sleepovers because I really didn’t think it was safe for the children, but my lawyer convinced me that if I wouldn’t do it the judge would probably even now give me a slap on the wrist and give my ex more than I would be willing to give, so he really strongly recommended me to do this otherwise it would all blow up in my face.

“I didn’t feel like I had a choice.”

“Often the kids have witnessed the violence themselves. They’re victims too.”

Mr Brown said children were often ordered by the court to visit their abusive fathers because family psychologists believed it would help the offender’s rehabilitation and the court was promoting “equal parenting rights”.

“Then mum is forced to drag the kids in kicking and screaming to see dad because if she doesn’t she’s worried she’ll be held in contempt of the family court,” he said.

“Often the kids have witnessed the violence themselves. They’re victims too.”

The five-year-old girl who saw her father repeatedly stab her mother ultimately refused to see him.

“In that case the child put up such a fuss at the prison about seeing her father that the prison stopped her from being able to visit,” Mr Brown said.

The man was sentenced to four years non-parole for the attack, which left the girl’s mother with horrific scarring, nerve damage and emotional trauma.

Mr Brown said once the man was released from prison the mother decided it was too dangerous for them to risk another court hearing, so they went on the run.

“It is a tragedy that has happened too often and will occur again.”

For NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch, it is clear the judicial system should be doing “everything it can to protect those young people”.

“There have been numerous cases of domestic violence where the husband or the male partner has killed the children because he can’t get at the woman and it's the ultimate act of power and control over the female partner,” Mr Murdoch said.

“It is a tragedy that has happened too often and will occur again.

“In these types of instances, the safety of the woman experiencing the violence is paramount, but if anything can be placed above that it’s the welfare and safety of the children.”

Mr Murdoch said witnessing domestic violence severely affected children.

“We know that emotionally it has a very significant impact on kids and a lot of the time they are collateral damage in the domestic violence between their parents,” he said.

The best interests of the child were the paramount consideration in family law, federal Attorney-General George Brandis said.

“Because every family and child is different, family law matters are considered on an individual basis, considering the child’s best interests in their particular circumstances, including where family violence or child abuse is alleged,” he said.

“Where there is family violence or child abuse, the Family Law Act prioritises the safety of children in parenting matters over a meaningful relationship with both parents.”

The Australian Institute of Family Studies is due to report on the impact of the 2012 family violence changes to the Family Law Act in August this year.

My view: Howard Brown

WE need the Family Court to stop ordering victims of domestic violence to take their children to visit the abusive partners in jail after they have been convicted of very serious crimes.

This only allows the cycle of abuse to continue, with a court’s sanction.

We also need our police to use their checklists when at the scene of an incident, so that full and proper evidence is compiled and then presented to our courts.

You cannot blame judges and magistrates for failing victims, if all the evidence is not put before them.

We cannot just blame politicians either because we are all to blame and that is what needs to change.

We all have to stop turning a blind eye when we know that something is wrong.

We have to tell our mates that their attitude to women is wrong and they will no longer be our mates if they continue in that vein.

But above all we have to tell it as it really is: This is not “domestic violence” — it is plain, ordinary old “violence”.

We don’t tolerate it on our streets, we impose lock out laws and other measures to make our streets safe.

Violence should never be tolerated just because it occurs in the privacy of our own homes and if we don’t all stand up and say NO, it will continue unabated and the cost to us all is horrifying.

We damage our loved ones by abandoning them at their time of greatest need and normalise violence.

I for one don’t want to live in a society that tacitly accepts it as a fact of life.

It can be stopped. It must be stopped, so step up and just say “no, not on my watch”.