Dis Honorable Judge David Debenham Topeka, KS

Monsters In The Closet—and Some Angry Monsters Are Pissed Off- They are as you would expect, woman hating, self entitled typical wife beaters and child abusers--- well done dude’s

2012-02-23T00:50:00.001-08:00

Abusers really have nothing better to do than to ‘act’ (as we all know) OHHHH soooooooooooo sincere.

I always lock or put all on moderation as they--- yes, the Monsters always have terrible things to say about dead mothers dead children.

Since they all sat around and were all --- upset w verzions childs view—just their abuser view and distoration – ya know the child? ya man that—

Thought I’d share a few of these LOVELY daddys , mens, abusers rights – fathers rights,entitlement folks non public but when they don't get what they want--- well… comments about the fear of children. Yes violent men- we know its all supposed to be about you—look up narcissistic yup-

its all in the sociopath --- they are sooooooo not sweet.. to EVERYONE cept when the cowards close the doors of the prison of home…

It is a BELIEF SYSTEM, ENTITLEMENT, OWNERSHIP…. and a blatant hatred to all women.

CHEERS – wife beaters and child beaters keep on posting….

my answer to all you poor monsters that do not want to be nothing but the perfect good guy—all survivors know this… is

WHEN THE CEMETARIES START FILLING UP W DEAD MEN LIKE THE DO DEAD MOTHERS AND CHILDREN--- then we can talk--- about all those evil wives—IMO should all be buying guns teaching their daughters and protecting themselves.

less dv i assure you—and well still no dead men. funnny how that works.

till then…. keep on whining crying and go home and beat the hell out of your family—since your all such GOOd men.

Monsters In the Closet - Domestic Violence From a Child's View

Create a video response or Post

Comments may be held for uploader approval.

fuck you cunt

pismostroch 1 week ago

This is fucking misandric bullshit.Most child abusers are womans.

pismostroch 1 week ago

There are violent women (I know - I was married to one) but you never hear about them in the press.

Weapons and the element of surprise are great equalizers, but getting the courts to prosecute a violent woman takes an act of god, and a father getting custody of his kids takes a miracle.

deadboltdad 2 weeks ago

Well done.The vast majority of abuse against children is perpetrated by women. This video helps to cover that up and helps female pedophiles and child-murderers get away with it.

Without your work and the work of Verizon some of this poor innocent abuser women could even get a slap on the wrist and we couldn't have that.

With your continued support we can make sure that many more children can be harmfully abused by women and we can make sure that those women get away scot-free. Hate on men

anontwelve 1 month ago

I reported this video for being anti-male and discriminatory. This video is no better than a KKK video! It is full of scare tactics against all males, and is far from true. This video is saying that all males(fathers and brothers) are monsters and that girls have to be scared of them. What a bunch of BS! You can take this feminism and stuff it! (this one made me laugh KKK? insanity is running deep)

jacobew2000 1 month ago

I had to hunt this video down..... Shame on Verizon! They removed it from the internet as much as they could. But thank you for making it accessible. I am glad I got a chance to see it. It does depict the feelings,,, however it doesn't seem to be as frightening.. walking on egg shells.. wondering what he will be like when he came home after work. When most people couldn't wait for the weekends.... I was relieved when Monday came around!

tinap610 1 month ago

@tinap610 I know. Me too.

ANGELFURY1212 1 month ago

This only says "She" sees abuse, and that it is the "Dad" that abuses them, and only says that the "Brother" will become an abuser. This basically says only Men abuse, and only Women are victims. Do break the cycle of silence, and say that Men are abused too.

           AngelusTheSheikh 1 month ago

This video is NOT a one sided attempt by a major telecommunications corporation to influence the minds of a bunch of complete and total morons to promote an organization that influences irresponsible and entitled women to irrationally fear, hate and be angry of men.

        cragmac1000 2 months ago

Men get abused too, why would u agree with this bias video?

       TheOutspokenman1 2 months ago

They fortunately pulled these misleading ads

anikinippon 2 months ago

Thanks so much for posting this video. I work at a domestic violence and sexual assault agency and this video says it all.

MsPsycho10 2 months ago

Why did you remove my comment? If you think you are absolutely right then you shouldn't censor what other people say.

lillie1990am 2 months ago

The view that domestic violence is male on female is factually false. Women and men commit domestic violence coequally. In addition women are the principal abusers of children. The US Department of health and Human Services show mothers abusing children at more than double the rate of fathers.

johntheother 2 months ago

more demonization of men, how typical from the misandric western female SMH

THEATRYCAL 2 months ago

My mother physically and emotionally abused my father to the point that he filed for divorce. Is my mother a monster? Is my sister a monster just like her? Am I a 'survivor'?

Why is the 'monster' always a man?

mrgimp420 2 months ago

There is no such thing as a "pro-abuser" lobby. The closest equivalent are those who demand that PSAs reflect the truth that women are just as violent as men and that we not paint dv as something that is done exclusively by men against women

lillie1990am 2 months ago

FORENSIC FALLACIES IN FAMILY COURT: THE MYTHS AND THE FACTS

2012-02-16T13:33:00.001-08:00

SEE ALL MYTHS AND FACTS PAGES
This page is http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/forensic-fallacies.html

FORENSIC FALLACIES IN FAMILY COURT:
THE MYTHS AND THE FACTS

In green: what the pundits, spin-meisters, and study summarizers SAY the studies have found (frequently interposed with could-bes, should-bes, what-ifs, comments, faulty conclusions, and suppositions without cites), and, in black: what the research actually says!

Myth -- Psychology is a science.

Fact: "Psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science."

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/feedback1.html

Myth -- It's a violation of psychology ethics to fully disclose test data and materials in discovery.

Fact: It's a sanctionable violation of due process to NOT do so.

See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/custody-evaluator-testing/index.html and
Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?

Myth -- Junk science in the courtroom can be countered by opposing expert testimony.

Finding: "The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony... Thus, contrary to the assumptions in the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, opposing expert testimony may not be an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom." (On the other hand, skepticism of all expert testimony might not be such a bad thing.)

Lora M. Levett and Margaret Bull Kovera, The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert Evidence. Journal Law and Human Behavior, Volume 32, Number 4 / August, 2008.

Myth -- Psychologists and other "mental health professionals" are trained, and better able than non-psychologists, including family court judges, to evaluate family situations and render opinions on appropriate child custody arrangements.

Fact: False. They have no special abilities by reason of their profession that enable them to investigate facts, determine credibility, see into the workings of people's minds, ascertain parenting capacity, glean the truth, make predictions about child development, determine whether past facts happened, assess risks, determine what is in children's interests, or make recommendations that will promote children's long-term well-being.

See the THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE index at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html, and the hundreds of supporting citations at Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators and at Custody Evaluator Quotes

Myth -- The research literature cited in law journals, and/or presented at professional and interdisciplinary conferences* to lawyers and judges represents a scientific consensus about what is in children's best interests.

*E.g. AFCC, and other venues that prominently feature mental health trade promotion in the courts (therapeutic jurisprudence) in which lawyers and judges interact or present talks in conjunction with mental health therapists and psychologists looking for work in the courts, such custody evaluators, mediators, and parenting coordinators.

Fact: Unfortunately, it is more likely than not that what is presented in these forums is cherry-picked and misrepresentative. Some of this is deliberate, but some of it is a result of inadvertent group think, narrow specialization that distorts perspective, or "publication bias" -- the tendency of agenda'd researchers to not present or publish findings that do not promote their agendas.

See the hundreds of supporting citations at Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/child-custody-evaluations.html and Custody Evaluator Quotes

Comment: "Much of the research in developmental psychology addresses the question 'How do parents socialize their children?' without asking 'Do parents socialize their children?' Surprisingly little of the developmental psychology research can be used to assist family courts, due to flaws such as the following:

Gregory DeClue,"The Best Interests of the Village Children, 30 J of Psychiatry and Law 355 (2002).

Myth -- Psychologists and other child custody evaluators can make an assessment of parenting skills and behaviors that will lead to better child development outcomes.

Fact: There is no scientific knowledge that mental health professionals have that can assist a court in this regard. There currently does not exist, and likely never will exist any "empirically grounded list of effective parenting skills or behaviors". Nor can the personality of the parents be distinguished in its environmental effects from heredity.

See Gregory DeClue,"The Best Interests of the Village Children, 30 J of Psychiatry and Law 355 (2002).

and see the hundreds of other supporting citations at Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/child-custody-evaluations.html and Custody Evaluator Quotes

Myth -- "Equality under the law" means that men and women are the same in all ways.

Fact: "Equality" under the law means that WHEN men and women are the same in all ways, the law will treat them that way, and that when they are not, the law will not default to what is characteristic of "man" as the standard. Thus, "equality under the law" means more than merely consideration of each person as an individual. It also means that that "consideration" will not be cast in terms of standards and rights that can attain only to non-gestating human beings. The law will not determine what is "reasonable" with reference solely to what would be "reasonable for a man;" the law will not determine what is "just" by reference solely to what could be "achievable by someone who cannot gestate;" and the law will not ignore reproductive differences between mothers and fathers where they do indeed exist and have effect.

liz

Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?
Therapeutic Jurisprudence Index
Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?
Child Custody Evaluations -- Reevaluating the Evaluators
Custody Evaluation Guidelines -- Reevaluating (mirror)
Right of First Refusal in Parenting Plans
Child Custody Evaluators "In Their Own Words"
Parenting Coordination, a bad idea
Parenting Coordinator Practical Considerations
Those Joint Custody Studies
Psychological testing, MMPI2, in child custody evaluations

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

2012-02-08T00:48:00.001-08:00

Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court. Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.

Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case of Jessica Gonzales.
In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:

History of domestic abuse that could be physical, psychological, sexual, and/or social abuse occurring on or off again, occasionally, or chronically which could be mild, moderate, or severe, including homicidal and/or suicidal threats.
Legal proceedings relating to abuse
Hiring of “Fathers Rights” attorney
Use of “Hired Gun” mental health professionals to make accusations of psychological disorder against the mother and children in deliberate effort to excuse abuse and change custody or grant visitation that is contrary to safety concerns. Another name for these unethical professionals are “Whores of the Courts“
Raising claims of “psychological disorders” against the mother such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS),Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome, Lying Litigant Syndrome, Hostile Aggressive Parenting or any other mother-blaming psychological disorder that can be used by the unethical professional to re-victimize the victims.
Infliction of “Legal Abuse” by continually and excessively filing motions so that the mother continually has to defend herself and her child(ren) causing financial and emotional devastation.
Can occur in response to child support legal proceedings as retaliation.

The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation.

Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.

Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.

Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:

Angry
Abusive
Violent
Coercive
Controlling
Threatening
Intimidating
Demanding
Domineering
Harassing
Stalking
Tyrannical
Oppressive
Forceful
Manipulative
Deceptive
Unethical
Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)
Entitled
Immature
Self-centered
Neglectful
Guilt inducing
Pushy
Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child
Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
Outrage at child’s challenge of authority
May use force to reassert parental position
Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility
Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits

There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:

Coercion and threats
Intimidation
Emotional abuse
Isolation
Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)
Using children
Economic abuse
Male privilege

The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often:

Abusive men
Vindictive second wives who don’t want to deal with the real mother of the children
Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)

The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father. Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by using brainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior.

Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.

For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:
Failure of Family Court System Leads To Death and Devastation
Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster
Child in imminent fear shoots father – vindicated in appeal – PAS fraud nightmare
Cincinatti PAS
VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS-Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews
And many more articles throughout Battered Mothers Lose Children to Abusers and all the links on the sidebar.
Maternal Deprivation Abuse will be featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children.

CINC for minor child Pediatrician Medical Records indicate sexual abuse from father Hal Richardson

2012-02-03T08:02:00.001-08:00

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=50421823

1999 march 23rd CINC for minor child Pediatrician Medical Records indicate sexual abuse from father Hal Richardson

Domestic Violence Continued: Contested Child Custody Through Protracted Litigation

2012-02-02T14:19:00.001-08:00

"Domestic Violence Continued: Contested Child Custody", is a 28 minute documentary produced by Dr. Sharon K. Araji, Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology at UCD. The video focuses on victims of domestic violence sharing their stories about what happened to them when they left their abusive partners and became involved in contested child custody cases. It features police and officers of the court who are knowledgeable about these types of cases, and interviews with Tanya Brown, Nicole Brown-Simpson's sister, Dr. Robert Geffner, international expert on the effects of domestic violence on children, and Lundy Bancroft, international expert on DV and contested child custody.

Colorado Documentary Participants: Denver Police Department DV Unit Officers Randy Royal and Benito Trujillo; Director, Family Tree, Scott Shields; Attorney and Advisor to Project Safeguard, Chris Radolf; and several Protective Mothers from area.

Documentary presentation held in conjunction with publication of book, "Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody" (April 2009), and Protective Mother's march on nation's capital, May 9th, 18th, 19th and 20th to raise awareness of the issue that is the focus of the documentary.
Co-Sponsors: UCD Sociology, Alpha Kappa Delta International Honor Society, Women's and Gender Studies Program, and Center on Domestic Violence, School of Public Affairs Program Editing Award: UC Denver, Center for Faculty Excellence.

Program Promotional Award: UC Denver, CLAS Dean's Fund for Faculty Development

Domestic Batterers Do Not Need Help! They NEED PUNISHED!! Jailed and Kept Away from their Victims!

2012-01-31T10:51:00.001-08:00

Will this insanity ever end? Topeka decriminalizes domestic violence, Kansas City just followed suit yesterday.

I listen to the local police Scanner and am simply amazed at all the poor batterer Domestic Violence calls—Daddy refusing to give children back after visits, kidnapping when mom does it- his kids when he does it, he is just stressed, addiction etc, etc, etc..... -sigh-

Photo by Gordon Cheung:The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Women will never be free as long as they cannot leave an abuser a Violent Offender with her children, in fact - this is where they do the next best thing to killing her- they take her kids. With the Courts help. Stop treating this as a illness, a family thing it IS A CRIME!!!! We Do Not Need Safe Visit For Violent Offenders like 'Safe Visit' see prior post.

We do not need to treat them we need to punish them for crimes committed. Punish as you would assault cases. At least get rid of the DV clause -- or 'get out of jail free card'.

Domestic batterers find help in YWCA program Steve Halley leads small groups that provide help for domestic violence offenders through the Family Peace Initiative program, based at the Topeka YWCA, 225 SW 12th. By Phil Anderson Domestic violence is a widespread problem that often spirals out of ...

Kansas City Ends Domestic Violence Ordinance - Women on the Firing Line In October, the District Attorney of Shawnee County, which encompasses Topeka, Kansas, announced that he would cease to prosecute domestic violence cases within the city of Topeka. He argued that with recent budget cuts he no longer had sufficient resources and that the city should take on the burden of these prosecutions. The city council responded by repealing their ordinance against domestic violence!

Kansas has so much crap going on at the moment, Gov. Sam Brownback pushing couples counseling and ABSTINENCE? It would be hysterically funny to even think this -- if it weren't true, that this, IS what they are doing.

I mean C'mon.... “Hey you perp… stop raping and beating your wife'. Yeah, that will sure fix it.

State's proposed domestic violence contract widely criticized But the two sentences are still inappropriate in a proposed contract for domestic violence services, no matter the rationale, said state Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, ranking minority member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Public Health and ...

Fatherhood Initiatives being forced down everyone's throat, His motto: "Woman stay married period." Brownback-I-Stan? indeed.
From Reality Check: Brownback, The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, Attacks Single Mothers...

“I’m going to force women into motherhood and marriage, Reduce Funding to SRS for mothers and Children and INCREASE Funding to SRS for Fatherhood Initiatives."

That is by the way DADDY WELFARE!!

I Expect The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse To Ride In Soon.

U. S. Fatherhood Initiatives - Control of Women and Children Under the Guise of "Responsible Married Fatherhood"

Attention Judges and Lawmakers: This is the REAL AGENDA of the Father’s Rights Movement

Maternal Deprivation Inflicted on Battered Women and Abused Children

Senate Judiciary Chairman - Response to Proposed Changes to Child Custody Law

Hearing to Review Responsible Fatherhood Programs

The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda

Topeka, KS: Safe Visit Looses United Way Funding, A Child trafficking, Batterer Friendly, Custody Switch Program. Fatherhood Initiatives Give Batterers Custody

2012-01-31T08:14:00.001-08:00

Custody Switch - Safe Visit of Topeka, Kansas - The Scam, Court Ordered Abuse for profit-

Because of the Fathers Rights Initiatives. Mommies NOT needed. Just Access Visitation Programs.

It’s about time!!!! YEAH!!!! one less, so many more to go….

Safe Visit and the many other programs that have morphed in the past two decades Odyssey, TREC, Fathers Rights Topeka and all the many many other so called metal health supposed professionals—and simple ‘social workers’ -who found easy $$- e.g. Connie Sanchez, Jenny Shaw, Kara Haney, (just to name a very few) who ‘charge $’ to SUPERVISE a Mother’s Visits with HER own Children.

I had not finished this chapter in my “Leaving The War Zone” I find it very difficult to write about the horrific human rights crimes that Kansas committed, allowed, continues… to my daughter and I, all to turn a buck. But due to the recent article about Safe Visit and Connie Sanchez in Topeka Kansas, "United Way pulls funding on Safe Visit program"

I publish below what I have written thus far and WHY all these so called –do good- human experiment-Programs [may be profitable to ‘Hitler’ type persona’s-this HUMAN Experiment, social engineering Program FAILURE] for use to follow up on article about Save Visit Loosing their Funding. And HOPEFULLY, God please… Closing by February.....(Note in the article it states ‘max 30 one hour supervised visits.’)

Rikki and I were SUPERVISED there for over Decade - 15 YEARS. Incredible. Two lives completely destroyed ... the best they could come up with was a limit of 30 hours. If this had been the rule (or if it had never existed in the first place) in the many years of it's inception in 1995 and in 1996 when we were 1st Court Ordered to the 'human trafficking' and 'Take Battered Mothers Children and give to Abusers Program' aka Safe Visit. These people need to go down, them and all ACCESS VISITATION aka Custody Switch Programs for Batterers.

Perhaps..…....a mother and daughter would know each today if 30 hours was max......As is, the batterer Hal Richardson has maintained his bond of chains and imprisonment of my daughter, with the assistance from safe Visit and other anti mother, Abuser friendly individuals and businesses….there has been absolutely no contact in several years. Which is why I began writing or attempts to "Leaving The War Zone."

#####

Chapter Three – Safe Visit - The Custody Switch, The Scam, The Profit$

June 15^th 2011 7:00 A.M.

Rikki with her Mother Claudine Dombrowski. Casualties of Safe Visit Program Who Assist's Batterers In Getting Child Custody, While Erasing Mother.

This case leads in a Human Rights suit filed at the Inter American Commission Human Rights on behalf of all battered Mothers and their children.

‘Dombrowski et el. v US’

Leaving The War Zone Chapter Three: The Custody Switch

It’s Wednesday, ‘hump day’. I am sitting outside this cool morning drinking my coffee, feeling the warmth on my legs listening to the world waking up- I am reminded of a time –many years ago when Rikki and I were still safe. In W. Kansas in our in Pawnee rock.

I would sit outside drinking my coffee in the early morning quiet. The weather cool- watering my awesome flowers that I had landscaped for several years.

Our home was beautiful. We had a small pool 12 ft for Rikki her friends and I. These were warm memory days. Days when I knew where my daughter was, days when hope floated with each beating of her heart. I would love to watch her sleep- she sleeps like I do- rough. She snores- like I do- and inherited maternal trait from my own dear mother.

Allergies tend to hit us with a storm, but we never let them effect the beauty and joy of each precious day we had. At this time in the late 90’s we had only 3 weeks together before the week long hell visits would begin for her.

The courts start in the custody switch. A game that is now known to many mothers- “The Custody Switch” mine came on snail mail by the Judge with out motion from either party, without hearing, the judge simple on his own issued his own 9 page order on July 31, 2000 that Rikki would be living with her father. And that if I foreclosed on our beautiful home and quit my well paying state job (dad never paid child support - I never needed it - I had been working for the state of Kansas as a psychiatric nurse for almost 13 years ) I was to quit my job, severe all contact with my home, Rikkis home, and relocate to Topeka Kansas (the courts knowing that do to my physical injuries inflicted by daddy dearest that I would not be able to work in Topeka—Larned state hospital had made concessions for my physical disabilities- and Topeka state hospital had closed in 1996- when I moved to Pawnee Rock).

That day, July 31, 2000 will always mark the day-:the music died’.- we had after 6 years of heavy litigation and after I had spent in upwards of over 1 million dollars—my child was gone. I was forced into unemployment, homelessness, and no health care—all for “the best interest of the child’. Makes no sense does it? Daddy promptly tried to get me back into the house by forcing me to have sex to even see Rikki—I did. Who wouldn't.

By December of that same year, the last time I saw Rikki with out armed guard—daddy had beaten Rikki so badly, I could not allow her suffering anymore -- I confronted him—only to find that once again as a good ‘co-parenting’ (as quoted by Harry Moore Case manger—‘it’s called co-parenting deal with it”) I had the hell beat out of me again. (this is co-parenting).

I then found myself brutally raped that same beating Dec 16^th,2000 just two days after Rikki had been beaten, (she fell up the hill btw) her face swollen and tears in her eyes. God, Rikki I am so sorry, I am so sorry. I tried to protect her, I did the unthinkable. I reported it.

As all protective mothers are - I was swiftly denied any contact with my dear sweet Rikki for the next two years. Then when I was placed into supervised visits “SAFE VISIT” of TOPEKA—they were arm guard—hence began the next decade of our lives. When I was able to see her it was through safe visits only. The cost was excruciating, the time was only an hour—we could not hug we could not talk about anything past dull, how’s school etc. And never never about why we were even there, why mom and daughter could not even see each other in the park, outside or at home, or go anywhere.

We remained confined to a 10’ x 10’ room with 1 monitor, 1 supervisor, 1 armed Shawnee county sheriff guard – all within arm distance - the monitor wrote down everything we said - everything we did. They even would stop us when we would talk to fast, so they could catch up.

I am sorry Rikki. (of course- I am not to have access to these reports) I do have some reports that they sent to the court or to the guardian ad litem. Not all mind you but some. See here: SAFE VISIT REPORTS & MEMOS

I am brought back to present day, the sun warm on my legs. The cool morning air of a Kansas summer. A life time ago. I have no contact with Rikki. Its been more that a year and a half since I last talked to or saw her. I have always been able to follow her cyber prints. But they ceased a month ago. No one knows where she is—dad will not report her missing. He is dad after all—still with his child’s coffin and hunting rifle on the wall. No one sees a problem with this.

Where are you baby? I pray you are safe, I pray you are alive.

There have been no unidentified bodies in the 100 mile radius fitting her description. ‘whew’.

Since I am a nobody the police will not help inform me of her whereabouts—after all dad a snitch for the police has just helped to ‘bag’ a 60 person felony drug bust—so they are really protecting him. –as usual.

[Leaving The war Zone – A Battered Mother’s Memoirs For Her Daughter] Claudine Dombrowski

U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System

2012-01-03T08:12:00.001-08:00

Courtesy American Mothers Political Party and Times Up!

Written by Barry Goldstein, Esq

photo courtesy Family Court Crisis - Abusers Get Child Custody - originally published Times Up!

Protective mothers have been complaining about mistreatment by the custody court system, but have routinely been dismissed as “disgruntled litigants.” As recently as the beginning of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences in 2004, there was little professional support for protective mothers. The mothers’ complaints have now been confirmed and supported by the domestic violence community, many women’s organizations, numerous governmental agencies, many in the academic community and a substantial body of research such as contained in our book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Last summer at the NCADV Conference, Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan and some of his colleagues presented their findings from a major Department of Justice study that confirms the findings in our book and other research that the present custody court practices for domestic violence cases are deeply flawed. The publication of these findings has taken longer than expected as Dr. Saunders and the Justice Department seek to carefully present the information in a clear and accurate manner, but they should soon be available on the Department of Justice web site. Many of us who seek to reform the broken custody court system are excited about this study because it should be difficult for the courts to dismiss or ignore because of where it comes from. Significantly, the findings are incompatible with a continued belief that the present practices are working for the benefit of the children the courts are supposed to protect.

Custody Courts Frequently Disbelieve Valid Abuse Complaints

Custody courts have a particularly poor record in responding to domestic violence cases. The research demonstrates that court professionals reject a high percentage of valid complaints by protective mothers. This problem has been confirmed in many ways. It is confirmed based on the frequency of mistaken outcomes. Although battered mothers make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, in contested custody cases the alleged abuser wins custody or joint custody over seventy percent of the time. Subsequent events regularly confirm courts’ mistakes. This occurs when men found safe by the court professionals are later convicted or otherwise found to have to have committed domestic violence, sexual abuse, murder or other similar crimes.

The revelations of the Courageous Kids Network further demonstrate the frequency in which courts fail to recognize valid complaints of abuse. Courageous Kids are young adults who have aged out of their custody orders and decided to speak out about the harm caused by these orders. The context is important in understanding their stories. These are cases in which the court disbelieved the mothers’ abuse allegations and gave the fathers complete control. The children have been threatened, coerced and punished if they continue to complain about their father’s abuse or seek a relationship with their mother. In other words the fathers have had tremendous assistance in silencing the children. Accordingly the children now speaking out represent a small minority of those mistreated by fathers the court believed were safe. The descriptions by the Courageous Kids demonstrate the fathers deliberately sought to hurt the mother and children based upon their belief system that the mother had no right to leave them. The children have had little or no contact with their mothers often for many years so we know the mothers could not be influencing the children’s decision to speak out about the fathers’ abuse. These are all too common examples of cases in which the court professionals failed to believe valid allegations of abuse.

Court professionals routinely discredit allegations of abuse based upon factors that are not probative. At the same time these professionals do not understand the importance of looking to the abusers’ patterns of controlling and coercive behavior in order to recognize domestic violence. The court professionals often make the mistake of considering each incident and each allegation separately. Genuine domestic violence experts understand the importance of context in recognizing domestic violence, but the mental health and other professionals relied on by the courts do not understand the importance of context and thus make it more difficult to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

One of the big obstacles to recognizing valid abuse complaints is the common use of mental health and other professionals without expertise in domestic violence. The main purpose of considering domestic violence in custody cases is to protect the safety of children. Nevertheless the evaluators relied on by custody courts rarely know how to conduct a safety assessment or what behaviors have been associated with higher lethality and other dangers. The evaluators do not understand domestic violence dynamics and often are unfamiliar with the effects of domestic violence on children or other information based upon the specialized body of scientific research that could be used to better understand domestic violence issues and recognize truthful allegations of abuse.

The new Department of Justice study helps explain why the evaluators and other professionals relied on by custody courts routinely fails to recognize domestic violence. The study found that most evaluators and other professionals relied on by the courts do not have adequate domestic violence training and those with inadequate training are more likely to believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation. The professionals who believe this myth, in turn are more likely to make recommendations that harm children. In other words judges have little chance to protect the children under their control as long as they rely on these unqualified professionals and tend to believe their deeply flawed analysis.

Judges often become defensive when protective mothers or their attorneys request that any evaluator or other court professional be required to have domestic violence expertise in order to be appointed. We have repeatedly seen judges refuse to listen to domestic violence experts offered on behalf of protective mothers. The courts often focus on the need for a mental health degree even though the academic training for most mental health professionals included no or virtually no domestic violence instruction and the law does not require advance degrees to qualify as an expert (a common example is a mechanic without a high school degree who can testify as an expert in automotive repair based on experience and training).

In recent years most court systems have encouraged and usually required some domestic violence training for court professionals. This is a good thing but has often been implemented in ways that undermine the purpose. Many of the trainings include substantial misinformation such as the belief most contested custody cases are “high conflict” when the research establishes a large majority are really domestic violence cases. Some of the trainings even include Parental Alienation Syndrome (sometimes by another name because of its deserved notoriety) even though it was recently again rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because there is no scientific basis for it. Many of the trainings fail to include domestic violence advocates or other genuine experts in domestic violence.

We have also seen some really good programs used to train court professionals, but I have heard many trainers complain that some of the judges, evaluators and lawyers pay little attention to the valuable information presented. In one Queens County, New York case I cross-examined an experienced evaluator who went to a really excellent domestic violence training in order to qualify as a parent coordinator. They provided numerous excellent research studies that could have helped him recognize domestic violence and protect children. During my cross-examination it became clear he never read the research and was unfamiliar with the current scientific research he needed to understand the case. When I pressed him about the training he described it as “not a life changing experience.” This was a man who needed a life changing experience because he failed to recognize the obvious history of abuse by the father, demanded the mother cooperate with her abuser and when she continued to try to protect herself and her son, the unqualified evaluator recommended custody for the abusive father. The judge failed to discredit the evaluator based on his failure to read or consider the current scientific research provided at the training.

We need much more and better trainings for court professionals, but there is also the danger that attending trainings can give judges and other professionals a false sense of confidence in their understanding of domestic violence. The findings by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues that most court professionals have inadequate training in domestic violence confirms our concern that in most cases the professionals relied on by the court are not qualified to participate in a domestic violence case without the assistance of a genuine expert. Even if the judge has received good training the court is likely to be influenced by unqualified evaluators and other court professionals.

The failure to possess adequate training in domestic violence means that it will be difficult for these professionals to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence, but the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse is a bias that strongly undermines the cases of protective mothers. These mistakes result in frequent findings denying the mother’s abuse allegations which is exactly what the other research has found. If a professional believes the myth they will expect to see false allegations and without training in how to recognize domestic violence they have little chance to get these cases right and protect the children. Even worse, courts having found against the mothers because of the deeply flawed practices and biases are severely punishing mothers and children because the mothers continue to believe their true allegations despite the disbelief of the unqualified court professionals.

A few months ago, in this forum, I wrote an article about the extreme decisions we often see in domestic violence cases.These are decisions in which the alleged abuser receives custody and the mother who was the primary attachment figure is limited to supervised or no visitation. The primary attachment figure is the parent who provided most of the child care during the first couple of years of the child’s life. When children are separated from their primary attachment figure they are significantly more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when older. It can never be right to separate children from their primary attachment figure unless she is unsafe such as a drug addict, someone who beats the kids or otherwise poses a danger. In most of these cases the father allowed or even demanded the mother provide child care until she decided to leave him. It should be obvious that her decision to leave a man she found to be abusive does not make the mother unsafe. Unqualified court professionals frequently limit the mother’s contact with her children based upon some version of alienation or pathologizing the mother based on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody cases. We know the diagnosis is not safety related because the mother functions fine in all other aspects of her life except interacting with her abuser and the court professionals supporting him. These are not safety issues so these extreme decisions can never be beneficial to the children.

The reliance on court professionals with inadequate training and belief in the myth takes place in the context of many other common mistakes discussed in earlier research. The courts cannot protect mothers and children in domestic violence cases if they cannot recognize domestic violence when it is present. The frequent decisions that harm children are confirmed by later findings and information, the extensive research court professionals routinely fail to consider and the new Department of Justice study and they provide multiple confirmations of the present inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and child abuse when it exists.

Misuse of Mothers’ Anger and Emotion

Let’s look at this issue from the mother’s perspective and in the context of her experience. These are domestic violence cases. The father usually has a long history of controlling and coercive behaviors and the mother has finally gained the courage and resources to leave her abuser in order to protect her children. She is fearful because of the many threats he made of what he would do if she left and knowledge that the most dangerous time for a woman is after she has left. She is angry at the way he has mistreated her and often the children. She may be worried about her ability to support and protect her children because her partner has been telling her how useless she is throughout their relationship.

Even if the father’s physical abuse ends when he no longer has access to the mother (which makes unqualified court professionals believe he is now safe), he continues his domestic violence through litigation abuse and often other ways. The abusers often use any contact provided by the court to seek reconciliation and/or to harass and attack her verbally or psychologically. Many women expect the courts to protect her children because the evidence is so overwhelming and instead find the court pressuring her to cooperate with her abuser and punishing her if she tries to protect her children from a man they have found to be hostile and dangerous. In other words she has good reason to be angry and emotional and in fact this would be a normal reaction to her experiences.

The research contained in our book and elsewhere supports this understanding and analysis. We discussed the common mistake of custody courts that treat the mother’s actions as a litigant as if they were an indication of her behavior as a parent. Over forty states and many judicial districts have created court sponsored gender bias committees. These committees have found widespread bias particularly against women litigants. One of the common examples of gender bias was blaming women for the actions of their abusers. One of the typical examples of this bias is when courts blame mothers for their anger and emotion caused by the father’s mistreatment of them and their children. In many cases the abusers deliberately harass or pressure them shortly before a court appearance is scheduled in order to obtain an emotional reaction the court is likely to misunderstand. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and so after their abuse that the judge does not see, come to court calm and cooperative. Court professionals are often fooled by this act.

The new Department of Justice study confirms what we said in our book and other similar research. Dr. Saunders found that court professionals frequently treat mothers’ anger and emotion as far more important than it actually is in terms of the well being of children. These professionals may be uncomfortable with the mothers’ emotions particularly if she criticizes their response to the father’s abuse. Clearly these are difficult and unpleasant issues to confront. The misinformation treating contested custody as if it were “high conflict” when it is actually domestic violence contributes to the misunderstanding of the mothers’ anger and emotion. The professionals are focused on forcing the parties to cooperate even though this is not the best approach for children. When the parties have difficulty cooperating and certainly in domestic violence cases, parallel parenting is a more effective approach for children. The problem, as demonstrated by the Saunders’ study is that these professionals are focused on their beliefs and preferences rather than research about what works best for children. The custody courts did not get into the practice of looking to current scientific research and particularly the specialized body of research about domestic violence because there was no such research when the initial court practices were developed. We now have substantial research that would help inform court decisions and avoid the frequent mistakes but court professionals rarely look to this research to help them make better decisions. This is why we rarely see custody courts weigh the benefits and harms to children of a proposed resolution. The Department of Justice study establishes that these flawed practices lead to decisions that hurt children.

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

We often hear complaints about corruption in the custody court system. This belief is supported by the many cases in which courts make findings that are far removed from a fair evaluation of the evidence and decisions that seem to be disconnected from the well being of the children involved. There are cases of outright corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, New York, but more often, I believe courts create the appearance of corruption because of bias, ignorance and deeply flawed practices. One of my concerns with complaints about corruption is that it makes it harder for judges in the broken system to hear the complaints and create the reforms that are needed. An important contributing factor to the widespread belief in corruption is the cottage industry that has been created to support abusive fathers.

Most contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving. Domestic violence is all about control so these abusive fathers usually have controlled the family finances and have these resources to support their custody litigation. Some lawyers and mental health professionals have figured out that they can make a large income by supporting practices and approaches that support abusers. We often see them advertise as supporting “fathers’ rights.” In many cases we see fathers’ attorneys and GALs promoting the appointment of evaluators who support abusive fathers. It is particularly frustrating when judges refer to these professionals who regularly support abusers as “neutral professionals.”

Many of these biased professionals strongly support PAS despite a lack of scientific justification. Significantly, PAS is based upon the assumption that virtually every complaint by mothers about the father’s abuse is deliberately false. The Department of Justice study found a problem with inadequately trained professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. The unqualified professionals supporting PAS are even worse assuming that virtually all such allegations are false. The courts have virtually no chance of making the right decision if they treat such biased professionals as having any credibility.

The Department of Justice study’s contribution to this issue is a finding that evaluators working for the court or the county made recommendations that worked better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. When Dr. Saunders described this finding at a workshop during the NCADV Conference I asked him if he thought the findings supported our concerns about the cottage industry that has developed to support abusive fathers. He agreed this was a good interpretation. Evaluators working for the court or county are not paid extra for each evaluation so they have no incentive to favor the wealthier parent.

Professionals often have fundamental conflicts of interest. Medical doctors who schedule tests or procedures will earn money from performing the services they recommend. Tests may be scheduled to shield the doctor from potential lawsuits rather than to benefit the patient. Lawyers who recommend going to trial, starting a lawsuit or making a motion will earn money when the client takes their advice. Similarly, mental health professionals benefit financially when patients accept recommendations for more services. The conflict of interest is largely unavoidable and the professionals are expected to have the integrity to act in their client’s best interests instead of their own. Unfortunately some of the evaluators and lawyers, particularly those supporting abusive fathers have not fulfilled this ethical obligation.

We have repeatedly seen problems in custody courts with mental health professionals and particularly ones sympathetic to abusive fathers making recommendations requiring protective mothers to use their unwanted and unneeded services. We see these biased professionals pathologizing mothers who have always taken good care of their children with diagnoses that are clearly wrong. This would include the frequent finding of rare conditions such as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, conditions like paranoia or delusional based on the mothers’ continued belief in the father’s abuse despite the failure of the court professionals to recognize his abuse and other emotional problems that magically seem to affect only her relationship with her abuser and the court. They seem oblivious to the fact that that she does fine in other parts of her life that under any unbiased circumstances would rule out the claimed diagnosis.

Some of these mistakes are clearly deliberate and qualify as corruption. Other cases may involve bias and ignorance and a lack of the needed qualifications as the Saunders’ study demonstrates. When the professionals who are part of the cottage industry engage in gender bias they usually do so without realizing it. Many actually believe in the theories and practices they use despite a lack of scientific basis. Some of this can be explained by confirmation bias where the professional focuses on information or accusations that support what the professional expects to find and ignores information that undermines their theories and assumptions. We see this kind of mistake frequently in domestic violence custody cases and the mental health professional is often unconscious that they are engaging in confirmation bias. In fact they are likely to become defensive and angry at the suggestion. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the harm of using professionals who are part of the cottage industry and the need for custody courts to screen court professionals to avoid relying on them. Even worse, courts often use these unqualified professionals to train other court professionals. This can only serve to spread misinformation which makes it harder for court officials to recognize the problems demonstrated by the Saunders’ study and other current scientific research.

Conclusion

The custody court system tends to look at each case and each issue or event in a case separately. This is based on a belief that just because a man slapped his wife on Monday does not mean he punched her on Friday. The court system uses stare decisis which means once a case or an issue has been decided the same parties cannot relitigate it. There are good reasons for these practices, but they work poorly in domestic violence cases because of the importance of context in understanding domestic violence. We often see cases where the court denies allegations of domestic violence and they may even have been right if there was insufficient evidence. Naturally the abuser continues his abusive behavior so more evidence becomes available, but many courts refuse to hear the new evidence or refuse to consider it in the context of the previous evidence because those issues were previously litigated. In doing this the court is denying itself the ability to recognize the pattern of the father’s abuse and protect the children. Domestic violence experts are confident that the custody court system is broken because we see the pattern of mistakes and harmful decisions, but the powers in the court system are offended at the criticism and cannot believe the problem because they refuse to look at the patterns.

The findings of the Department of Justice study, by itself, provides convincing documentation that the custody court system is getting a large majority of domestic violence custody cases wrong. It would be impossible for courts to get most cases right when most of the court professionals have inadequate domestic violence training, those with inadequate training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, the courts are placing too much weight on mothers’ anger and emotion and the evaluators who earn additional money through appointment in custody cases are making decisions more harmful to children then those who do not have a financial incentive. This study was not made in a vacuum, but was produced in the context of a substantial and growing body of scientific research that establishes the custody courts are making bad decisions in contested custody cases that endanger children. The research also establishes that the standard practices used in the custody courts are deeply flawed and outdated.

I am hopeful that a study coming from the U. S. Department of Justice will be harder for the custody court system to ignore. They have a strong reputation and can only be considered neutral. Furthermore, the courts frequently seek grants and other funding from the Department of Justice. Protective mothers and their attorneys can cite this research and it should be harder for the courts to ignore. I can’t wait until it is published on the DOJ web site.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Parental Alienation: What This Phoney Syndrome Does in Custody Battles Why More Fathers Are Able to Yank Children Away from Their Mothers Legally

2012-01-03T07:06:00.001-08:00

Yahoo! Voices

There are many instances that I could cite here where physically and sexually abusive fathers have gained custody of the children in custody battles, but instead I will list only a few of the more heinous crimes done to these children legally in divorce court. Sure fathers have rights to the children too but what about in these cases where the children are harmed? Does that not effectively prove to the court that they are unfit? Do these fathers still deserve visitation with these innocent, traumatized children? If you had been raped repeatedly as a child, can you imagine a judge forcing you to visit with the person who hurt you?

Father X was furious when Mother X filed for divorce. The judge forced the mother to take the kids for visitation anyway. Father X had made threats in court but the judge would not relent. Mother X came back to get the children and found them hanging by a home-made noose. The children survived barely. The judge in the case placed the mother in jail for refusing to allow any more visitation. The father eventually did go to jail for attempted murder but only after a year fighting for custody of the children.

Father X was recorded threatening to kidnap the children when he was allowed visitation. The mother would never see her children again. This was played for the judge in divorce court. The judge told the mother that if she did not allow visitation, she would go to jail. An arrest warrant was placed for the mother but she went through criminal court to have the father arrested for threats made against her children.

Father X raped his young teen daughter. Mother X refused to allow more visitation. The father cited parental alienation as the reason for the claims against him. He won custody and the mother is still fighting for her daughter.

There are websites that tell how fathers win custody of their children through citing parental alienation although they have physically and sexually harmed their children. Manuals are sold online to help fathers win custody or visitation of these children. Yanking even breastfed infants away from their mothers. Step by step directions on how to win in custody battles for fathers who have never been involved with the children. Children who never even saw their father before are being sent to a stranger's house basically. Can you imagine how horrifying and traumatizing this would be for a small child? Typically mothers do not fight in court for no visitation unless there is a good reason. Mothers who trust fathers to take good care of the children will not resist a visitation schedule. Mothers who have any qualms about it should be listened to by the courts. Mothers' instincts come into play here as well.

Small children need stability. Why judges do not take this into consideration is a puzzle to me. How they allow fathers who have never cared for a child before to take over full custody is beyond my comprehension. If a parent has been the full time caregiver, why would a judge change this? Parental alienation. A made-up term supposedly meaning that the mother has turned the children against their father. Strangely most mothers would never even speak to their children about grown-up issues such as an unfit father. They don't need to do that, these children know that their father is a stranger to them. They know when they have been abused. If a child is refusing to go on visitation, the judge should take a closer look as to why. Of course the father's rights advocates blame the mother, hence "parental alienation" claims.

If a child is alienated from their father, it could be for good reason and have nothing to do with the mother at all. This is centered more around mothers as it is rare that a father will be a full time caregiver. Usually it is the mother doing all of the caregiving while the father works. There are many reasons for this happening...for fathers to get custody and liberal visitation although there are health and safety concerns for the children. Most judges are men and side with the fathers. The woman's attorney is a cheap one as the mother can't afford a better attorney. The men's attorneys are highly paid attorneys, fathers are the breadwinners in most all cases. So mothers start out lower on the totem pole. The judge is already against her and the father has the better attorney. The deck is stacked against her. This isn't only about mothers though. It is about protecting our children from harm.

Divorce is not painful in and of itself. The pain for children comes from being torn away from their homes, away from their mothers. The children stop trusting adults when they are forced to go with an abusive parent. The judge ordered it after all, the mother didn't stop it, and the father wasn't placed in jail where he belongs. The harrassment of mothers needs to stop in family court. The traumatizing of children needs to stop in family courts around the United States. It is never in a child's best interests to be sent with an abusive father or a total stranger whichever the case may be. Judges need to look up and pay attention during custody disputes. Children of divorce depend on them to make the right decisions.

Published by Carolyn Foster

‘Monsters in the Closet’ Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective

2011-11-30T20:46:00.001-08:00

Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline Launch ‘Monsters,’ a Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective. The Courts Fail many children by giving them to the father who battered their mother, the child is literally left alone with her ‘monster’ daddy. –

Like Judge David Debenham --they ‘profit’ instead of ‘protect’.

BASKING RIDGE, N.J. —“Monsters,” a provocative new video, portrays the alarming impact of domestic violence on families and children, as seen through the eyes of a young girl. Produced and funded by theVerizon Foundation and supported by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the video encourages the public to get involved in domestic violence prevention and education efforts, and also emphasizes that help for victims and their families is just a phone call away: 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233).

Verizon Wireless customers can quickly reach the National Domestic Violence Hotline by dialing #HOPE. The hotline offers confidential help 24/7. To help support the hotline’s efforts, Verizon Wireless, through HopeLine has donated $75,000. HopeLine collects no-longer-used wireless phones and recycles or refurbishes them to support domestic violence victims and survivors.

The video, two minutes and 34 seconds long, graphically describes how domestic violence affects children. The child’s voice states:

“A child who lives with domestic violence lives in darkness. …She struggles to separate her nightmares from reality because there’s very little difference. The child who lives with domestic violence isn’t afraid of the dark. She’s afraid of her dad because the monster doesn’t live in her closet – it’s just down the hall.”

Studies suggest that between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence each year. And according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, witnessing violence between parents or caregivers is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. The video notes that girls who witness abuse are more likely to be abused later in life, and boys are twice as likely to abuse their own partners – “because that’s the world they know.”

Rose Kirk, president of the Verizon Foundation, said:

“To end this devastating cycle of violence, we must motivate silent bystanders to take action. People need to understand that when they look the other way, they condone this deplorable behavior. Verizon is committed to preventing domestic violence by educating our employees, customers and the public about the importance of stepping in to help someone in need. We believe that this provocative video will help us accomplish this life-saving goal.”

According to some studies, less that 1 percent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police.

Dyanne Purcell, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, said: “It takes an incredible amount of courage to come forward and ask for help. The more established domestic violence is in our national dialogue, the more likely victims will be able to seek help and make a lasting change.”

The video concludes with the child narrator making a poignant plea for the public to help:

“Maybe you don’t wake up every day shaking, or jump every time the phone rings. But maybe you should look a little harder. Maybe it’s a friend, a co-worker, or your neighbor. …Your help could make all the difference. We need everyone to bring domestic violence into the light.”

Kirk said, “Please share the link to the ‘Monsters’ video with your family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. It’s a simple action that may have a huge impact.”

The “Monsters” video can be viewed athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=367JvtoTm34.

‘Monsters’ Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective Launched by Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline

2011-11-30T20:36:00.001-08:00

Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline Launch ‘Monsters,’ a Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective

Video (below) Aimed at Encouraging Public to Support Domestic Violence Prevention Efforts and to Call for Help

The video, two minutes and 34 seconds long, graphically describes how domestic violence affects children. The child’s voice states:

“A child who lives with domestic violence lives in darkness. …She struggles to separate her nightmares from reality because there’s very little difference. The child who lives with domestic violence isn’t afraid of the dark. She’s afraid of her dad because the monster doesn’t live in her closet – it’s just down the hall.”

Rose Kirk, president of the Verizon Foundation, said:

“To end this devastating cycle of violence, we must motivate silent bystanders to take action. People need to understand that when they look the other way, they condone this deplorable behavior. Verizon is committed to preventing domestic violence by educating our employees, customers and the public about the importance of stepping in to help someone in need. We believe that this provocative video will help us accomplish this life-saving goal.”

According to some studies, less that 1 percent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police.

The video concludes with the child narrator making a poignant plea for the public to help:

“Maybe you don’t wake up every day shaking, or jump every time the phone rings. But maybe you should look a little harder. Maybe it’s a friend, a co-worker, or your neighbor. …Your help could make all the difference. We need everyone to bring domestic violence into the light.”

Kirk said, “Please share the link to the ‘Monsters’ video with your family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. It’s a simple action that may have a huge impact.”

The “Monsters” video can be viewed athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=367JvtoTm34.

About the National Domestic Violence Hotline

The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established in 1996 as a component of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed by Congress and is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Hotline is a nonprofit organization providing crisis intervention, information and referral to victims of domestic violence, perpetrators, friends and families. The Hotline answers a variety of calls and is a resource for domestic violence advocates, government officials, law enforcement agencies and the general public. http://www.thehotline.org

About Verizon Foundation

The Verizon Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Verizon, uses its technology, financial resources and partnerships to address critical social issues, with a focus on education and domestic violence prevention. Verizon has invested more than $28 million in domestic violence prevention. For more information on the foundation, visit www.verizonfoundation.org.

About Verizon

Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, NASDAQ:VZ), headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to consumer, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon Wireless operates America’s most reliable wireless network, with more than 106 million total connections nationwide. Verizon also provides converged communications, information and entertainment services over America’s most advanced fiber-optic network, and delivers integrated business solutions to customers in more than 150 countries, including all of the Fortune 500. A Dow 30 company, Verizon employs a diverse workforce of nearly 196,000 and last year generated consolidated revenues of $106.6 billion. For more information, visit www.verizon.com.

VERIZON’S ONLINE NEWS CENTER: Verizon news releases, executive speeches and biographies, media contacts, high-quality video and images, and other information are available at Verizon’s News Center on the World Wide Web atwww.verizon.com/news. To receive news releases by e-mail, visit the News Center and register for customized automatic delivery of Verizon news releases.

U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System

2011-11-25T05:54:00.001-08:00

(Battered Mothers, Abused Children are Being Further Battered and Abused by the US Courts failure to let Domestic Violence Mothers Leave With Their Children. Many Ask, “Why Doesn’t She Just Leave?” When it comes to Domestic Violence, besides all the other very unsafe reasons those with children will loose their children to the very animal who hurt them and their children. Many mothers,(most) have never seen their children again after the Courts gave their child[ren] to the Abusers. Most Children, if the survive, end up just like they were taught raised and reinforced by the Courts, as abusers themselves for boys and victims for girls. That is not county all the other trauma related issues. This has passed beyond just injustice but has stepped full fledge in Human Rights Violations. It truly is like the holocaust, the destruction of women and their children by the USA, Sanctioned Genocide Against Mothers and their Children. Right in Plain View, See: Mothers Day Law Suit filed Against the U.S. at the Inter American Commission Human Rights. (still pending)

From Times –Up!! Attorney Barry Goldstein

photo courtesy of Family Court Crisis-Abusers Getting Custody!

By Barry Goldstein

Custody Courts Frequently Disbelieve Valid Abuse Complaints

The research not only demonstrates the fact that the custody courts get a large majority of domestic violence cases wrong, but also that the standard practices used by court professionals are deeply flawed and make it difficult for judges to recognize legitimate complaints about domestic violence and child abuse.
Court professionals routinely discredit allegations of abuse based upon factors that are not probative. At the same time these professionals do not understand the importance of looking to the abusers’ patterns of controlling and coercive behavior in order to recognize domestic violence. The court professionals often make the mistake of considering each incident and each allegation separately. Genuine domestic violence experts understand the importance of context in recognizing domestic violence, but the mental health and other professionals relied on by the courts do not understand the importance of context and thus make it more difficult to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

A few months ago, in this forum, I wrote an article about the extreme decisions we often see in domestic violence cases. These are decisions in which the alleged abuser receives custody and the mother who was the primary attachment figure is limited to supervised or no visitation. The primary attachment figure is the parent who provided most of the child care during the first couple of years of the child’s life. When children are separated from their primary attachment figure they are significantly more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when older. It can never be right to separate children from their primary attachment figure unless she is unsafe such as a drug addict, someone who beats the kids or otherwise poses a danger. In most of these cases the father allowed or even demanded the mother provide child care until she decided to leave him. It should be obvious that her decision to leave a man she found to be abusive does not make the mother unsafe. Unqualified court professionals frequently limit the mother’s contact with her children based upon some version of alienation or pathologizing the mother based on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody cases. We know the diagnosis is not safety related because the mother functions fine in all other aspects of her life except interacting with her abuser and the court professionals supporting him. These are not safety issues so these extreme decisions can never be beneficial to the children.

Misuse of Mothers’ Anger and Emotion

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

Protective mothers often have no chance when these biased professionals are appointed regardless of how strong their cases may be. Many of the mothers have complained that the evaluators and GALs make misrepresentations to the court in order to justify findings in favor of the abusive fathers paying their fees. When such professionals lie to the court about the evidence or to justify fees they did not earn, the mothers are justified in complaints suggesting corruption.
Many of these biased professionals strongly support PAS despite a lack of scientific justification. Significantly, PAS is based upon the assumption that virtually every complaint by mothers about the father’s abuse is deliberately false. The Department of Justice study found a problem with inadequately trained professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. The unqualified professionals supporting PAS are even worse assuming that virtually all such allegations are false. The courts have virtually no chance of making the right decision if they treat such biased professionals as having any credibility.
The Department of Justice study’s contribution to this issue is a finding that evaluators working for the court or the county made recommendations that worked better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. When Dr. Saunders described this finding at a workshop during the NCADV Conference I asked him if he thought the findings supported our concerns about the cottage industry that has developed to support abusive fathers. He agreed this was a good interpretation. Evaluators working for the court or county are not paid extra for each evaluation so they have no incentive to favor the wealthier parent.

Conclusion

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

2011-11-23T11:14:00.001-08:00

Courtesy Source: AMPP

SEATTLE JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

[excerpt]

II. REASONS WHY BATTERERS USE FAMILY COURTS TO CONTINUE THEIR ABUSE

When a couple divorces, the legal system may become a symbolic battleground on which the male batterer continues his abuse. Custody and visitation may keep the battered woman in a relationship with the battering man; on the battleground, the children become the pawns.36

There are numerous reasons why a batterer chooses to use the courts and the litigation process; many of them are explored below. Before delving into the specific reasons, it is important to discuss the frequency with which batterers decide to participate in family court proceedings.

As mentioned earlier, fathers who abuse are twice as likely to seek sole custody of their children as nonviolent fathers, and notably, abusive fathers are three times as likely to be in arrears of child support.37 In one recent study in Massachusetts, fifteen of the forty fathers (approximately 38 percent) who sought custody received sole or joint custody of the children, despite the fact that each and every one of these men were reported to have abused both the mother and the child/children prior to separation and continued to do so after separation.38

Thus, before exploring why courts may choose to disregard a history of domestic violence,39 it is important to note that a history of violence does not stop batterers from obtaining custody. In fact, a history of abuse seems to increase the likelihood that the batterer will seek custody.

So, why do batterers use family courts as a battleground at all? What is it about the courts, and family courts specifically, that is so appealing to them?

[because they can]

A. Only Available Contact Left

One of the most obvious reasons batterers use family courts is because it is often the only way they can legally maintain any contact with the survivor.40 After leaving their abuser, survivors may try to keep their contact information private in order to keep as much distance from the batterer as they can. They may seek formal protection through restraining orders or civil protection orders. They may move without allowing the batterer access to their current address or phone number. However, even if a survivor can achieve this physical distance from a batterer, the batterer may try to initiate contact through the courts by seeking custody of or visitation rights with his child/children. In this way,the courtroom may present an opportunity to prolong contact with the victim or seek contact that is not otherwise available.41

As mentioned earlier, not all batterers who abuse the mothers will abuse the children. Certainly, nuanced solutions exist that can provide an opportunity for fathers, even those with a history of domestic violence, to remain in some sort of communication with their children. Every family has unique circumstances that can allow for a variety of solutions;however, because the courts may be the only way and the only forum for abusive fathers to continue abusing their former spouse and children, it is important for courts to take a comprehensive look at each situation and to act carefully if a history of abuse is present.

See Full Document From Journal Here:
One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

One More Battleground Domestic Violence, Child Custody, And the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Vict...

Gender Politics and Child Custody: The Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

2011-11-20T17:26:00.001-08:00

Elizabeth S. Scott* & Robert E. Emery**

The best interest of the child standard has been widely criticized by scholars for its vagueness and indeterminacy, and yet for forty years it has been the prevailing rule for resolving custody disputes. This article confirms the deficiencies of the standard, focusing particularly on a problem that has received little attention: Best interests poses daunting verifiability problems because a) much family information is private, b) parties often are unable to prove the qualitative factors that that lawmakers have endorsed as proxies for best interest, and c) the incommensurability of these factors precludes courts from assigning them appropriate weights.

Despite the substantial risk of erroneous or arbitrary custody decisions, the best interest standard remains firmly entrenched, with the apparent approval of policymakers and courts. We explain this puzzle as the product of two interrelated factors.

First, a protracted gender war has embroiled advocates for mothers or fathers for decades, thereby creating a political economy deadlock. The main front in the gender war has been the legislative battle over joint custody, but it has also played out in the efforts of mothers’ groups to make domestic violence a key factor in custody disputes and the responsive effort by fathers’ advocates to elevate claims of parental alienation. These efforts have brought apparent determinacy to important categories of cases, and thus have contributed to the entrenchment of the best interest standard.

Second, courts and legislatures have failed to recognize the intractable problems inherent in resolving these contests because they mistakenly believe that psychologists and other mental health professionals have the expertise to obtain accurate family information and then to evaluate and compare the competing evidentiary claims. Courts routinely ask these professionals to guide them in making custody decisions- an unusual role for experts in legal proceedings.

But mental health experts do not have the skill or knowledge to perform these functions; acting without the constraints generally applied to experts, they routinely go beyond the limits of science and of their own expertise in advising courts about custody. Their participation thus masks the deficiencies of the best interest standard and contributes to its perpetuation. Exposing the illusion that psychological experts can overcome the problems inherent in best interest determinations is an important step toward real reform and better custody decision making. Desirable reforms include adoption of the ALI approximation standard, restrictions on the admissibility of psychological
evidence, and encouragement of private ordering for resolving most custody disputes.

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................……….……..2

*Harold R. Medina Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law.
**Professor of Psychology; Director, Center for the Study of Children and the Law, University of Virginia. For helpful comments, we thank Kate Bartlett, Emily Buss, Peg Brinig, Maxine Eichner, Bert Huang, Clare Huntington, Jeannie Suk, Lois Weithorn and especially Robert Scott. For excellent research assistance, we thank Sara Weinberg, Sadie Holtzmann and Kristine Van Hamersveld.

II. THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD AND THE PROBLEM OF VERIFIABILITY .......7

A. A Brief History of Modern Custody Doctrine ..........................................…………..7
B. Custody Decision making and the Limits of the Judicial Capacity ....................…9
      1. Traditional Arguments for and Against the Best Interest Standard ...........….. 9
      2. An Overlooked Consideration: The Problem of Verifiability ....................…….10
            a. Family Privacy and Verifiability. ..............................................…………….11
            b. The Challenge of Qualitative Proxies .........................................…………12
            c. The Incommensurability Problem .............................................………….13
      3. The Search For Better Proxies For Better Interest ............................………..13

III. THE GENDER WAR OVER CHILD CUSTODY REGULATION ............................... 15

A. Legislative Struggles and the Political Economy Deadlock ..............................…16
       1. The Father’s Movement and the Battle over Joint Custody ......................….16
       2. The Politics of Motherhood .........................................................……………20
       3. Legislative Response to Gender Politics.............................................……...22
B. Defining Best Interests- Domestic Violence and Parent Alienation .....................23
       1. The Domestic Violence Presumption ..............................................………..25
       2. Parental Alienation as a Response. .................................................………..31

IV. THE ILLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERTISE IN RESOLVING CUSTODY
DISPUTES ...........................................................................................……………………..35

A. How Important Are Mental Health Experts in Resolving Custody Disputes? ..........36
B. Analyzing the Custody Evaluation Process- The General Critique .....................…38
C. Assessing Family Violence and Parental Alienation ......................................……..41
1. Family Violence. ......................................................................………………….41
2. Parent Alienation “Syndrome.” ......................................................……………..43
D. Bad Science and the Absence of Evidentiary Standards .................................…..45

V. REFORMING THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ................................................…..47

A. The Case for Approximation .............................................................………………48
B. Improving Accuracy in Custody Proceedings .............................................……….51
C. Avoiding Adjudication- Collaborative Divorce and Mediation ...........................……53
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................………………….56

Full Article Here:

Gender Politics and Child Custody- the Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

2011-11-20T17:23:00.001-08:00

II. REASONS WHY BATTERERS USE FAMILY COURTS TO CONTINUE
THEIR ABUSE

When a couple divorces, the legal system may become a symbolic
battleground on which the male batterer continues his abuse.
Custody and visitation may keep the battered woman in a
relationship with the battering man; on the battleground, the
children become the pawns.36

After looking at how domestic violence operates as a mechanism of
control, perhaps it is not surprising to discover that batterers manipulate the
courts and their victims during dissolution, custody, and visitation
proceedings. After all, domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that is not
easily reversed, so separation alone is unlikely to break the pattern of abuse.
There are numerous reasons why a batterer chooses to use the courts and
the litigation process; many of them are explored below. Before delving
into the specific reasons, it is important to discuss the frequency with which
batterers decide to participate in family court proceedings.

As mentioned earlier, fathers who abuse are twice as likely to seek sole
custody of their children as nonviolent fathers, and notably, abusive fathers
are three times as likely to be in arrears of child support.37 In one recent
study in Massachusetts, fifteen of the forty fathers (approximately 38
percent) who sought custody received sole or joint custody of the children,
despite the fact that each and every one of these men were reported to have
abused both the mother and the child/children prior to separation and
continued to do so after separation.38 Thus, before exploring why courts
may choose to disregard a history of domestic violence,39 it is important to
note that a history of violence does not stop batterers from obtaining
custody. In fact, a history of abuse seems to increase the likelihood that the
batterer will seek custody.

So, why do batterers use family courts as a battleground at all? What is it
about the courts, and family courts specifically, that is so appealing to
them?

[because they can]

A. Only Available Contact Left
One of the most obvious reasons batterers use family courts is because it
is often the only way they can legally maintain any contact with the
survivor.40 After leaving their abuser, survivors may try to keep their
contact information private in order to keep as much distance from the
batterer as they can. They may seek formal protection through restraining
orders or civil protection orders. They may move without allowing the
batterer access to their current address or phone number. However, even if a
survivor can achieve this physical distance from a batterer, the batterer may
try to initiate contact through the courts by seeking custody of or visitation
rights with his child/children. In this way, the courtroom may present an
opportunity to prolong contact with the victim or seek contact that is not
otherwise available.41

As mentioned earlier, not all batterers who abuse the mothers will abuse
the children. Certainly, nuanced solutions exist that can provide an
opportunity for fathers, even those with a history of domestic violence, to
remain in some sort of communication with their children. Every family has
unique circumstances that can allow for a variety of solutions; however,
because the courts may be the only way and the only forum for abusive
fathers to continue abusing their former spouse and children, it is important
for courts to take a comprehensive look at each situation and to act carefully
if a history of abuse is present.

Full Document Here:

One More Battleground Domestic Violence, Child Custody, And the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Vict... http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=73301306&access_key=key-1zb9x2hkdqmw641m75ob&page=1&viewMode=list

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap. Why We Should Reconsider Gender Neutral Family Leave Policies

2011-11-19T18:32:00.001-08:00

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap by Susan Pinker

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/sexual-paradox.html

Myth -- "Equality under the law" means that men and women are the same in all ways.

Fact: -- "Equality" under the law means that WHEN men and women are the same in all ways, the law will treat them that way, and that when they are not,
the law will not default to what is characteristic of "man" as the standard.

Thus, "equality under the law" means more than merely consideration of each person as an individual. It also means that that "consideration" will not be cast in terms of standards and rights that can attain only to non-gestating human beings. The law will not determine what is "reasonable" with reference solely to what would be "reasonable for a man;" the law will not determine what is "just" by reference solely to what could be "achievable by someone who cannot gestate;" and the law will not ignore reproductive differences between mothers and fathers where they do indeed exist and have effect.

###

Why We Should Reconsider Gender Neutral Family Leave Policies

Pages 79-80:

"...One might expect that men married to female university professors would be more likely to have egalitarian views and share child care
equally, but this is another myth. Steven Rhoads, a professor of public policy at the University of Virginia, had similar assumptions. He ran a nationwide study and found that 75 percent of female faculty believed their husbands should take on equal amounts of child care, housework, and
paid work. Just over half of their husbands agreed. Yet the women spent much more time with their children than their husbands did, and in
universities where they were offered paid parental leave, 67 percent of the eligible women took advantage of it, only 12 percent of male faculty
took that time off, and when they did, they didn't use the time the same way. 'We heard stories of male academics who took paid post-birth leave in
order to advance their publishing agendas,' wrote Rhoads, commenting that he'd heard of one school that changed its rules as a result. Upon
returning from her maternity leave, one female colleague recalled being asked by a male colleague how the leave had gone. She replied, 'I used the
time well.' Then the man said, 'So you got a lot of work done.' But that's not what she meant.

"If more academic mothers use a leave to spend time with their baby and more new fathers use the time to publish, then a system based on men and
women being identical ends up punishing women. When these family-friendly policies are applied equally to both sexes, academic women experience more discrimination, not less. One unofficial study at an Ivy league college found that parental leave benefits available to both sexes had that
paradoxical effect: no woman who had taken a family leave in the previous fifteen years had subsequently received tenure. Most if not all of the
small number of men who had taken family leave did. This was never published or even tallied up as a real study, but it became commonly cited
during the tenure discussion, summarized as 'a woman takes family leave and comes back with a backlog, a man takes family leave and comes back
with a book'... Realizing what was happening, a committee at the college tweaked the policy to allow additional leave for those who give birth
(obviously, fathers wouldn't be eligible). This helped... [N]o one wanted to discuss the issue openly, allow the college to be named, or be
identified in any way. The topic was taboo..."

Mothers and Fathers are Different

Pages 163-164:

"...given the choice, 60 to 80 percent of American and European women choose part-time work over full-time schedules or staying home full-time
-- even if they had initially intended to work full-time and even if the decision will cost them in job security and earnings. 'The vast majority of women who claim to be career-oriented discover that their priorities change after they have children.' writes [British sociologist Catherine] Hakim. Eroding the idea of a united sisterhood, Hakim has amassed data from European and American census and national surveys that clearly show that women in modern societies are hardly homogeneous. Instead, they separate fairly cleanly into three groups. There are those who want to stay home full-time, whom she calls 'home-centered' (approximately 20 percent). There are those whose careers take precedence, whom she calls 'work-centered' (approximately 20 percent). These career-oriented women experience few disadvantages to being female; if they have the same credentials and put in the same hours, they achieve the same rewards as men.

"The majority, the remaining 60 percent, are women who try to combine children and career, drifting between various work schedules and
positions, looking for the perfect arrangement. There 'adaptive' women adjust their careers to accommodate their families' needs and their own values, a trend as powerful in socially progressive Sweden and Norway as it is in the United States...

"Calling it 'Preference Theory,' Hakim nailed two realities. Not all women want the same thing. And when women have choices, only about 20 percent
will choose what men choose... exclusively career-oriented women are a minority, Hakim says..."

Pages 168-170:

"If you had asked me before my first child was born to choose from Hakim's three groups, I wouldn't have hesitated before placing myself with career
oriented women. I didn't expect to feel any differently after my baby was born than I did before -- or much differently than her father would. But
my plans for a swift return were shot to hell when a wrinkly, underweight, and squalling baby appeared instead of the placid, pink-cheeked, robust infant I'd imagined cheerily handing off to a babysitter... Work demands seemed remote... I was shocked by my protective feelings. I needed to be
with her. I needed her to be healthy....

"In the early eighties I was not alone in thinking that men and women had nearly identical brains, but that we had been socialized to take on
different roles. If my husband, a doting father, could leave his scrawny newborn after two weeks at home and go to work for ten hours a day without
a backward glance or a blip in his concentration, the script dictated that this was because he had learned that his role was to be the provider. And
if I felt physical distress about tearing myself away from a six-week-old baby -- notwithstanding the monotony and isolation of new motherhood -- I
had internalized mine as a maternal caregiver. Never mind that my mother and both grandmothers worked outside the home, as well as in it. Many of
us thought that if only women could tame their outdated sentimentality, if only men were present and willing to offer their babies more bottles, then
our parental roles could be reversed... At the time we assumed that men and women were equals -- not just in rights and opportunities, as they should be, but also in underlying psychology and behavior. Any differences, including physical differences, could be fixed via technology, policy, or force of will...

"This is the vanilla gender assumption: that female is just a variation of male. But more than two decades after my daughter was born, brain imaging
and neuroendocrinology have unveiled many of the biological networks underlying mothers' specific longing for their infants and their drive to nurture them... "

Pages 210-211:

"[Harvard professor Robert] Trivers's theory suggests that competitive risk-taking is wired into males. Due to her own unique wiring, a female invests greatly in her future offspring, feeding them nurturing them, and raising them to maturity, all at significant cost to herself... once pregnant, that's it. She's committed. No matter how many one-night stands she has, a female will only have a given number of offspring during her lifetime -- which she's programmed to guard with her life -- while a successful, competitive male striver can father... even a hundred...

"The math was demonstrated by Lucky Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty of Morocco (1646-1727), who fathered 888 children with multiple wives. Meanwhile, the female record holder, Madalena Carnauba of Brazil, married at 13 and gave birth to 32 children. The evolutionary anthropologist Sarah Hrdy points out that the context is missing. We don't know how many children from each family survived, or how many of their rivals' offspring were done in by Moulay's more competitive wives. But the difference in output between Lucky and Madalena is still 856 children. More recent accounts... Rahman, who has fathered seventy-eight children and set a target of one hundred children by 2015... Jogi... who became the world's oldest dad when he fathered his twenty-first child with his fourth wife..."According to Trivers, the parent who invests more in their offspring is the one who ultimately limits how many there are -- namely mothers..."

Feminist Fear and Political Correctness

Pages: 258-263:

"[T]There's a fear that if we recognize the existence of sex differences we'll become part of a conservative backlash that will send women back to the kitchen. I'd argue that a more nuanced understanding of the average differences between men and women can lead to progress instead. In fact,
several problems arise from NOT acknowledging that sex differences exist. Workplaces and career schedules designed for a single, standard male approach to competition and success now discourage many women, notwithstanding their native smarts, their educational opportunities, and
their impressive accomplishments...

"Exhorting women to make 'male' choices is more pernicious than simply encouraging them to earn more. Educated women who forgo the highest paying or high-status jobs are usually aware of their options and have weighed the pros and cons. The finger-wagging about being influenced by the media,
not knowing the consequences of their actions, or giving license to employers to discriminate against women... follows in a long tradition of assuming that women don't know their own minds... the prevailing message is that these women are either patsies or victims. The idea that women don't know what they want, or don't have the power, interest, or inclination to determine their own fate lends a feeling of deja vu to the debate about men, women, and work. Telling women that they'd prefer computer science to a degree in English or history if only they weren't blindered by cultural norms, or that putting in fourteen-hour days when their children are toddlers is really what's in their best interests, is a form of infantilization. It's also a form of homogenization. The problem is not that some women choose to opt out, others to work part-time, or that other women prefer to keep working as long and as hard as they can. The problem is that only one choice is seen as the right one..."

Subheadings on the excerpts above are by thelizlibrary.org
The URL for this webpage is http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/sexual-paradox.html
-----------------

Topeka Maneuvers Over Domestic-Abuse Law Outrage Survivors

2011-10-17T05:58:00.001-07:00

From the LA Times

Claudine Dombrowski tells of having her wrists broken, being hit on the head with a crowbar, getting chipped teeth and, at one point, needing 24 stitches to close a wound. Even when she left her boyfriend, she says, the abuse didn't stop. Ultimately, she says, she was left on total disability.

“I called the police, I did all the right things, I ended up in court, and on a good day, it got reduced from domestic violence to disorderly conduct,” Dombrowski, a Topeka, Kansas, resident and now an advocate for abuse survivors, told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday.

So Dombrowski was outraged when misdemeanor domestic abuse — already an insult, she thinks, for not being equal to an assault charge — went unpunished for a month in Topeka after a local funding dispute turned into a circular firing squad that caught battered women in the center.

The county didn’t want to pay for prosecuting misdemeanor domestic battery; the prosecutor didn’t want to take the cases without more resources; and the city didn’t want to pay for handling the cases either.

Meanwhile, as many as 30 abuse suspects went free before the city of Topeka, in a legal maneuver, forced Shawnee County prosecutor Chad Taylor to resume prosecution of the cases — by dramatically pulling its own domestic abuse law from the books. The state has its own law, which the prosecutor would need to enforce.

“The fact that it happened just makes me feel pretty worthless, you know?” Dombrowski said. “We spend millions of dollars on public service announcements saying we [domestic-violence victims] don’t have to live this way ... and you really do.”

Times have been tough for local governments. The economic buck stops with them because they don’t get to run on debt the way the federal government does, and some of the collapses have been spectacular.

Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, threw up the white flag this week and declared bankruptcyafter a failed $300 million incinerator project capsized the city’s budget. The city manager formoribund Vallejo, Calif., has one assistant; she has to lock the door when she leaves, because there’s no one else in the office.

But for women, the symptoms of the municipal budget crisis are especially stunning in the sleepy prairie metropolis of Topeka. There, the symbolic decriminalization of domestic violence has thrown a spotlight on a chronically underreported issue in a state where women’s advocates are used to fighting uphill battles.

“We live in Kansas, where we are used to taking a lot of punches on the chin,” said Kari Ann Rinker, state coordinator for Kansas NOW, which recently saw the state legislature try to defund Planned Parenthood.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s conservative stances have led a few residents to derisively dub the state “Brownbackistan.”

But beyond the familiar battlefronts over abortion, domestic violence hits especially close to home. In 2008, Jana Mackey, a 25-year-old Kansas NOW lobbyist who volunteered to aid victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, was found slain in an ex-boyfriend’s home.

“When I went in front of the county commission in Shawnee County about this issue [funding prosecutions for domestic abuse in Topeka], I brought everything I had, and I was emotional,” said Rinker. “Sometimes I’m accused of being less than professional. But I’ve tried to do this nicely, to fight this mentality in this state, and we’ve reached this point where we need to stop being nice and start rattling some cages to do so.”

Added Dombrowski: “If these people really cared about women, they would come up with the money. They wouldn’t argue about it.”

The past month has been treacherous for domestic abuse survivors in Topeka, according to Becky Dickinson, program director for the Topeka YWCA Center for Safety and Empowerment, which she said saw an increase in the number of women needing help.

“It became a very scary and dangerous time for victims to get law enforcement involved,” Dickinson told The Times, adding that victims “were calling the police and seeing their abusers being arrested but getting released in 48 hours.”

In an abuse situation, Dickinson said, abusers are often the most dangerous after they’ve been arrested. They come home looking for revenge. Needless to say, Dickinson said, “victims were concerned” about the budget spat.

Dickinson said that in 2010, the Topeka YWCA helped 1,305 county residents with services and counseling for domestic and sexual violence, assisted with 586 protection orders, housed 190 women and children in a shelter, and received nearly 2,000 calls to its crisis hotline.

Those numbers are likely low. Domestic violence often goes unreported. So it’s a dark irony that Topeka’s new time in the international limelight comes during Domestic Violence Awareness Month. “Now Topeka is known as the domestic violence capital of the world,” Kansas NOW’s Rinker said.

Whether the county prosecutor’s announcement that it is resuming prosecutions will fix the problem remains to be seen; the prosecutor’s office is expected to lay off almost a fifth of its staff by the end of the year, which could impact the prosecution of domestic violence cases that the office just resumed prosecuting.

“Even on a good day, it doesn’t work,” Dombrowski said of Topeka’s handling of domestic abuse victims. “And now it’s even worse.”

--Matt Pearce in Kansas City
Twitter.com/mattdpearce

Photo: Claudine Dombrowski, left, a survivor advocate, greets Amber Versola, a lobbyist for Kansas National Organization for Women, on Tuesday at a rally at the Shawnee County Court House in Topeka, Kansas. Credit: AP / The Capital-Journal, Anthony S. Bush

Topeka Kansas: Failure to Protect Violates Statutes

2011-09-23T06:01:00.001-07:00

Topeka Kansas: Failure to Protect Violates Statutes

The hour heated up in the Zeus Radio Studio starting with a discussion about the city of Topeka , KS decision to stop prosecuting domestic violence cases with my suggestion that the District Attorney obtain permits and go into the cemetery business. The city of Topeka is throwing victims' lives to the wolves disguised in sheep's clothing, more commonly known as the violent offenders.

The city is hiding behind the budget because frankly Kansas does not see intimate partner violence a crime.

The Shawnee County press release: September 15, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dakota Loomis • 785.438.9449

Shawnee County DA’s Office and City of Topeka Working to Resolve Misdemeanor Case Filings

__________________________________________

Released in Cooperation with David Bevens · City of Topeka · City Communications Manager · 785.368.1642

Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor and Interim City Manager Dan Stanley met today to discuss the prosecution of misdemeanor cases occurring within Topeka city limits. The meeting centered on how best to preserve public safety given recent budget cuts sustained by the District Attorney’s Office. Both the District Attorney’s Office and the City of Topeka are hopeful that an amicable agreement will be reached shortly that will be in the best interest of all Topekans. Discussions will continue over the course of the next few days and will focus on crafting a mutually agreed upon resolution that will ensure the efficient prosecution of all city misdemeanors.

# # #

Translation if your dog bites someone you will be prosecuted. If you spouse or significant other threatens or causes significant bodily injury, you are out of luck!

According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, current data, there are16,800 homicides (reported)attributed to intimate partner homicide per year and $2.2 million in medically treated injuries costing $37 billion per year!

______________________________________

Is Topeka Kansas in violation of their very own State Statues?

22-2307 : Domestic violence calls; written policies to be adopted by law enforcement agencies; contents. (a) All law enforcement agencies in this state shall adopt written policies regarding domestic violence calls as provided in subsection (b). These policies shall be made available to all officers of such agency.(b) Such written policies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A statement directing that the officers shall make an arrest when they have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed;
(2) a statement defining domestic violence;
(3) a statement describing the dispatchers' responsibilities;
(4) a statement describing the responding officers' responsibilities and procedures to follow when responding to a domestic violence call and the suspect is at the scene;
(5) a statement regarding procedures when the suspect has left the scene of the crime;
(6) procedures for both misdemeanor and felony cases;
(7) procedures for law enforcement officers to follow when handling domestic violence calls involving court orders, including protection from abuse orders, restraining orders and a protective order issued by a court of any state or Indian tribe;
(8) a statement that the law enforcement agency shall provide the following information to victims, in writing:
(A) Availability of emergency and medical telephone numbers, if needed;
(B) the law enforcement agency's report number;
(C) the address and telephone number of the prosecutor's office the victim should contact to obtain information about victims' rights pursuant to K.S.A. 74-7333 and 74-7335 and amendments thereto;
(D) the name and address of the crime victims' compensation board and information about possible compensation benefits;
(E) advise the victim that the details of the crime may be made public;
(F) advise the victim of such victims' rights under K.S.A. 74-7333 and 74-7335 and amendments thereto; and
(G) advise the victim of known available resources which may assist the victim; and
(9) whether an arrest is made or not, a standard offense report shall be completed on all such incidents and sent to the Kansas bureau of investigation.
History: L. 1991, ch. 93, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 208, § 3; July 1.

Below is the show I urge everyone to listen. Can a class action suit be filed in the State of Kansas for failure per the current statutes? It is worth investigating? In the coming months we will gather a team of legal experts to visit and review at the Federal level and the State of Kansas's "failure to protect."

Attorney and Author Barry Goldstein and National Advocate and Mothers Without Custody Expert Claudine Dombrowski

Sep 22, 2011

To listen to Show CLICK HERE --------> Susan Murphy Milano: TIME'S UP!! 9-22-2011

Download Podcast - Susan Murphy Milano: TIME'S UP!! 9-22-2011
Right mouse click and choose "save as" or "save link as" to download a podcast mp3 file to your computer.

A victims first scream is help;

A victims second scream is justice

****

Susan Murphy Milano is a staff member of the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education . She is a specialist with intimate partner violence cases and prevention strategies and high risk cases and available for personal consultations through the Institute. She is also part of the team at Management Resources Limited of New York.
Susan is the author of "Time's Up: A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships,"Moving out, Moving on, and Defending Out Lives. Susan is the host ofThe Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time's Up!" . She is a regular contributor to the nationally syndicated "The Roth Show " with Dr Laurie Roth and a co-host on Crime Wire .
If you would like to schedule Susan Murphy Milano for interviews, please contact: ImaginePublicity PO BOX 14946 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 Phone: 843.808.0859 email- contact@imaginepublicity.com

The Susan Murphy Milano Show- "Scared To Leave Afraid To Stay" 2:00 PM Eastern Time Live

2011-09-22T04:14:00.001-07:00

Go to www.herewomentalk.com

and listen in live!

The Susan Murphy Milano Show- "Scared To Leave Afraid To Stay" 2:00 PM Eastern Time Live

Claudine Dombrowski could very well be considered a “Wounded Warrior” in the fight against intimate partner violence. Fighting her personal battle against her abuser for over 16 years, she’s also taken her fight across the nation helping several other battered mothers who have lost custody of their beloved children to the very person who abused them.

In a recent development in her own backyard in Shawnee County, KS, District Attorney Chad Taylor decided to hand over misdemeanor cases, like Claudine Dombrowski’s, to the city, due to funding issues. Dombrowski knew the ones to pay the price for this decision would be those caught in the crosshairs of the abuser’s rage when released, and has taken her outrage to the media.(http://imaginepublicity.com/2011/09/15/the-lights-went-out-in-topeka-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-claudine-dombrowski-speaks-out/)

Through organizing globally, Claudine Dombrowski, and other battered mothers, have foundedAmerican/Australia Mothers Political Party to bring attention and educate others. Through combining their online efforts across the globe, they are able to link together, not always physically, but by forming groups through the wonders of technology and carrying their message far and wide.

Barry Goldstein has fought battles in the trenches and the courtrooms in an attempt to keep battered women from losing their treasure, their children. He continues to work with agencies and educators and has joined his expertise with others in the battle against violence in the home. Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

BARRY GOLDSTEIN, attorney, teacher, author and advocate for women abused by their partner (and too often the courts) has written a book for women seeking to leave their abusers and for their friends, family, supporters and advocates. SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY Paths From Family Violence to Safety tells the story of ten women as they left their abusers seeking a better life. The book shows in these abuse cases how courts handle legal issues such as orders of protection, custody, visitation, support, marital property and criminal prosecutions. It tells about the resourcesavailable for women seeking to leave their abuser. Click the links to learn more about the book, author or to view frequently asked questions (FAQs). The book is published byRobert D. Reed Publishers and is available at book stores online and off.

Go to www.herewomentalk.com and listen in live!

Thursday, September 22, 2pm ET

Imagine Publicity: “Wounded Warrior” Claudine Dombrowski and Activist Barry Goldstein Join The Susan Murphy Milano Show, Time’s Up

2011-09-20T08:31:00.001-07:00

MARKETING.PROMOTIONS.PUBLICITY

http://imaginepublicity.com/2011/09/18/wounded-warrior-claudine-dombrowski-and-activist-barry-goldstein-join-the-susan-murphy-milano-show-times-up/

SUSAN MURPHY MILANO

“Wounded Warrior” Claudine Dombrowski and Activist Barry Goldstein Join The Susan Murphy Milano Show, Time’s Up

The Susan Murphy Milano Show, “Time’s Up!”

Thursday, September 22, 2pm ET

Listen LIVE at: Here Women Talk

In a recent development in her own backyard in Shawnee County, KS, District Attorney Chad Taylor decided to hand over misdemeanor cases, like Claudine Dombrowski’s, to the city, due to funding issues. Dombrowski knew the ones to pay the price for this decision would be those caught in the crosshairs of the abuser’s rage when released, and has taken her outrage to the media.( http://imaginepublicity.com/2011/09/15/the-lights-went-out-in-topeka-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-claudine-dombrowski-speaks-out/)

Through organizing globally, Claudine Dombrowski, and other battered mothers, have founded American/Australia Mothers Political Party to bring attention and educate others. Through combining their online efforts across the globe, they are able to link together, not always physically, but by forming groups through the wonders of technology and carrying their message far and wide.

A Hard Hit to DV Victims by The Criminal Justice System in Kansas

2011-09-19T05:22:00.001-07:00

A Hard Hit to DV Victims by The Criminal Justice System in Kansas

http://www.examiner.com/domestic-violence-abuse-in-honolulu/claudine

Dara Carlin, M.A.

, Honolulu Domestic Violence & Abuse Examiner

It's Actually Come Down To This

Until recent years Civics, Democracy and Criminal Justice were only topics from a class that I was supposed to be paying attention to when I was in high school. Unable to see how any of it was going to really matter or have anything to do with my life, I opted to half-listen, paying just enough attention to catch the main concepts but spent more time passing notes, daydreaming and doodling the time away until the bell would release me from my imprisonment.

I got that a misdemeanor wasn’t as bad as a felony and figured if I just steered clear of both, I should have no problem. For those of you who were as interested as I was in high school about the criminal justice system, I offer you the following crash course before laying out what the newest alert is (so you can be as concerned about it as I am!)

While a misdemeanor is better known as “a lesser crime” in comparison to a felony the distinction goes just a tad bit further in that a misdemeanor is actually defined as a crime that could land a person in jail for less then a year as opposed to a felony that’s actually defined as a crime that could land a person in jail for more then a year.

Murder is unanimously held as a felony across the United States, but otherwise the definition of crimes occurs at the state level. So, for example, while it may seem that strangulation would be considered a felony (a more serious crime) it didn’t become a Class C felony (a sentence that can carry up to 5 years in jail) in Hawaii until relatively recently (2006). Prior to 2006, can you imagine being strangled then being told it’s “just” a misdemeanor?

Even more disillusioning is landing/finding oneself in the criminal justice system (that has very little resemblance to what you see on “Law & Order”). Actually, my brother-in-law (a corrections officer) and I recently ruined a criminal justice-related movie for my sister when we each piped up instinctually with “They can’t do that” or “That’d NEVER happen” comments throughout the movie and totally ruined it for my sister who was just trying to enjoy it for the plot and storyline. (Sorry!)

In real-life, what’s supposed to happen when a crime occurs is someone notifies the police about “the offense” (proper terminology) and then the police will do an investigation (talk to the victim and/or alleged perpetrator if possible, gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc.) the findings of which will all this go into a report. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say this is a misdemeanor where the alleged perpetrator is not arrested for whatever s/he’s been accused of. The completed report then gets forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office for review where the Prosecutor (called a District Attorney in other jurisdictions) will decide whether the offense contains enough merit to be prosecuted or not.

Here’s a critical piece of information that many don’t realize: if the Prosecutor accepts the case and moves forward on it, the case “belongs” to the state NOT the victim whose been wronged; the victim becomes a witness for the state/prosecution.

Why is this important? Because in many domestic violence cases where the abuser is ignorant to all this, the abuser thinks that the victim can “call off” the Prosecution or that the victim has the ability to simply “drop” the case – neither of which are true – but from his perspective what’s true is irrelevant; what she does (or doesn’t do) is. Can you see how this could shape up to be a pretty dangerous situation if an offense has occurred, the abuser HASN’T been arrested and then the Prosecutor decides to take the case?

Next step: court. This is where the abuser enters a plea of either guilt, no contest (not admitting guilt but not proclaiming innocence either) or not guilty to what s/he’s being accused of. If the abuser says “Not guilty” the next step is a trial where witnesses and evidence can be presented by the Prosecution and Defense BUT before the plea is formally entered a couple of “strange things” can happen…

The Defense OR Prosecution can propose a plea bargain where the abuser is afforded the opportunity to "plea down" to a lesser offense, ie: a domestic violence offense being reduced to harassment. Plea bargains can be offered for a number of reasons, but the long-term consequences of a plea down from domestic violence doesn’t work well in addressing or rectifying the problem of DV. If an abuser pleas down to harassment (for example) then there’s “no domestic violence” = no DV intervention services, the abuser will not reflect a DV history stemming from the offense and the record will not count the case as a DV one which can mislead the public in terms of misrepresenting the size of the problem (DV in the community isn’t as big of a problem as harassment is).

Similar to dropping the case, the victim has no say or influence over plea bargaining (so if you’ve had the courage to take your case “all the way” and have cooperated with the Prosecution, can you imagine how it’d feel to be told by the Prosecution that your case has been “settled” because THE ABUSER'S agreeing to call what he did to you "harassment" rather than DV? That instead of going to jail, the abuser has agreed to community service hours instead? But it could be worse...

How do you think it would feel as a victim if your DV case ended before it even started? That after mustering up the courage to report to police who dutifully submitted their report to the Prosecutors, that it was turned away NOT for lack of evidence or witnesses but due to lack of funding? (And how do you think your abuser's going to feel knowing that you turned him in, tried to have him put away but failed so now he's free to "talk" to you about it?)

Or suppose the judge just released your abuser from custody saying “Awww, forget it, case dismissed” because s/he knew that the Prosecution wasn’t going to/couldn’t afford to prosecute it? If that sounds like an improbable breakdown in our criminal justice system, check out what’s just gone down in Topeka, Kansas: http://www.kansasfirstnews.com/news/local/story/Topeka-domestic-abuse-survivor-trembling-over-DAs/sgAbRRlYaE2M6ljJGYtzFA.cspx

Our criminal justice system was not founded upon dollars and cents and last I knew justice isn't supposed to be decided after a cost-benefit analysis, but Kansas has just set a terrifying precedent by telling domestic violence victims that their lives - and the crimes committed against them - aren't worth their state's time, money or effort. This is a sad day for domestic violence victims in Kansas and a day that I hope will never dawn here in Hawaii.

For a more formal/thorough explanation of the misdemeanor/felony processes in Hawaii, go to http://www1.honolulu.gov/prosecuting/flowchart.htm

Topeka, Kansas - Domestic Abuse Survivor Trembling Over DA's Decision to Pass Down Misdemeanors DV is NOT A CRIME in TOPEKA, KANSAS

2011-09-16T09:08:00.001-07:00

PLEASE COMMENT ON ORIGINAL ARTICLE! We need OUTRAGE to stop this political game playing at the expense of women.

Right now in Topeka Kansas—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is LEGAL. Since last week’s decision of the County DA to stop prosecuting Domestic Violence in the city limits, there have been 35 Domestic Violence arrests that have WALKED with no charges!

The City manager is considering a repeal in the City Ordinances that Domestic Violence is NOT A CRIME within the city. http://bit.ly/nCxc5M

http://www.kansasfirstnews.com/news/local/story/Topeka-domestic-abuse-survivor-trembling-over-DAs/sgAbRRlYaE2M6ljJGYtzFA.cspx#

Topeka domestic abuse survivor trembling over DA's decision to pass down misdemeanors -

Topeka domestic abuse survivor trembling over DA's decision to pass down misdemeanors

http://www.kansasfirstnews.com/news/local/story/Topeka-domestic-abuse-survivor-trembling-over-DAs/sgAbRRlYaE2M6ljJGYtzFA.cspx#

16 years after enduring constant physical abuse, the memories still shake Claudine Dombrowski to the core. She says, "I was beaten with a crowbar, it was a misdemeanor. I've had both my wrist broken and it was a misdemeanor."

Dombrowski says she's disgusted at how poorly survivors are treated after making the terrifying decision to call authorities. She says community leaders see it as, "Let's put these victims in with weed control and dog at large and parking tickets. That's how important you are to our community."

Dombrowski says the word "misdemeanor" has such a harmless connotation and wishes people knew the horrible actions hiding behind it. She says, "I was pushed through plate glass windows and if I had not been in a relationship with this man, he would be in prison."

If the city does decide to take on the domestic abuse cases, Dombrowski hopes it's only until funding can be restored at the District Attorney's office. She says, "We've just jumped back 30 years into the dark ages, and it's very dark. The lights just went out in Topeka."

She says many times the misdemeanor charges get reduced to disorderly conduct and destruction of personal property, and she can't imagine how easy the abusers will have it in city courts. Dowbrowski says you can help domestic violence victims of Topeka by demanding more money for the District Attorney's office, so they can continue to protect the public.

UPDATE:
Wednesday morning, Topeka Interim City Manager Dan Stanley said there is some thought being given to repealing the city ordinances to force the prosecution back on the county. He says it will then be up to the D.A. to prioritize what cases should be prosecuted.
Stanley says he's concerned about what will happen to the individuals whose cases are not being prosecuted. He says, "We know of three cases where judges have released the people accused of domestic violence back out because it their understanding that the district attorney will not prosecute and so there may be more of these."

Topeka Police Officers are forwarding misdemeanor cases involving domestic violence to the District Attorney's Office. Stanley says the D.A.'s office has already turned away 30 cases. He believes the victims and their families are most affected.

Topeka Domestic Abuse Survivor Claudine Dombrowski Trembling Over DA's Decision to Pass Down Misdemeanors

2011-09-15T09:35:00.001-07:00

Topeka domestic abuse survivor trembling over DA's decision to pass down misdemeanors -

Topeka domestic abuse survivor trembling over DA's decision to pass down misdemeanors

http://www.kansasfirstnews.com/news/local/story/Topeka-domestic-abuse-survivor-trembling-over-DAs/sgAbRRlYaE2M6ljJGYtzFA.cspx#

When Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor decided to hand over misdemeanor cases, like Dombrowski's, to the city, she knew it would weigh heaviest on victims of domestic violence. Knowing the consequences a victim could face when the abuser is arrested, then released, she advises victims not to call the police. She says, "You, as a survivor, know how to survive. You just keep surviving. If you call the police right now, and God forbid you end up with the city, you might die."
Dombrowski says she's disgusted at how poorly survivors are treated after making the terrifying decision to call authorities. She says community leaders see it as, "Let's put these victims in with weed control and dog at large and parking tickets. That's how important you are to our community."

DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH! By Barry Goldstein “Times-Up”

2011-08-26T19:04:00.001-07:00

DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH!

By Barry Goldstein

I can understand why the court system did not immediately seek to learn from and rely on domestic violence experts when domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s. There was no research available and few domestic violence advocates. A popular assumption and misconception was that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. This led some people, including court professionals to treat mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence.

I do not understand how courts still do not require the use of domestic violence experts in cases involving allegations or evidence of domestic violence. We now have a substantial body of specialized domestic violence research that establishes the courts are getting a very high percentage of domestic violence custody cases wrong and often spectacularly wrong because of the standard use of flawed practices. These mistaken practices cause even good judges to regularly make bad decisions. Although mothers involved in contested custody cases make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, fathers receive custody between 70 and 83% of the time. In other words a large majority of abusers who seek custody are successful.

The highest priority in deciding custody has to be the child’s safety as without safety nothing else matters. In a domestic violence case, this should require a safety or risk assessment. Instead, custody courts regularly order evaluations. Not only do these evaluations fail to conduct risk assessments but few evaluators even know what behaviors are associated with higher levels of lethality. We virtually never see an evaluation report in which these vital issues are even discussed and when evaluators are asked about abusive behaviors they are rarely aware of the risks demonstrated. Ignorant of fundamental safety issues, evaluators instead focus on less important issues.

Evaluators are generally trained in psychology of psychiatry, but not domestic violence. Even if they have received a few hours of training in domestic violence and have been willing to listen (many evaluators are hostile to this training), at most it gives them some general awareness of the subject, but not expertise. That is why evaluators rarely provide the courts with information about lethality assessments, domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research. It is why they don’t know what to look for to recognize domestic violence and often mistakenly assume the danger is diminished with the end of the relationship. Especially important is their failure to understand and explain to the courts the harm of domestic violence to children.

Caseworkers at child protective agencies are often social workers and usually have more special training about domestic violence than the psychologists who serve as evaluators. Many communities have developed practices in which child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence cases. They cross-train each other’s staffs and when a possible domestic violence case needs to be investigated the caseworkers will consult domestic violence advocates and sometimes take them to the home. This practice has been shown to benefit children because it gives caseworkers a better chance to recognize when the father has engaged in domestic violence tactics and therefore create arrangements that work best for children. This should be considered best practices.

Ethical practices for psychologists and psychiatrists require these professionals to consult with experts in areas they don’t have expertise in that impact cases they are working on. Unfortunately these ethical considerations are aspirational so the routine failure of evaluators to use these ethical practices does not result in disciplinary proceedings. They instead result in ruining children’s lives when evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and protect children from very real dangers. THE BATTERER AS PARENT, which is one of the leading authorities on domestic violence and custody, makes a similar recommendation. Clearly a practice that works so well for caseworkers who generally have more training is even more important for evaluators to use.

Expertise in Safety Issues

Fundamental to the work of domestic violence advocates is the ability to engage in safety planning with their clients. In order to do this, they need to be able to assess the level of danger presented by the client’s abuser. We can never know that an abuser will not kill or seriously injure his partner. This is particularly true when she has left him because75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. There are, however, many behaviors domestic violence experts look closely at because they have been shown to demonstrate a significantly higher level of danger. Among the factors experts look for in assessing lethality are choking, strangling or grabbing her throat, hitting a woman while pregnant, rape or attempted rape, hurting pets, threatening suicide, homicide or kidnapping, substance abuse, mental illness, refusal to obey laws or court orders, availability of guns and a belief she has no right to leave.

With rare exceptions, evaluators and other court professionals do not have this fundamental information and do not apply it to the cases they are working on. When we review cases in which courts disbelieved the mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and gave custody to alleged abusers, the evaluators never discussed safety and lethality issues. It is possible, although rare, that a mother could make false claims that some of these safety factors apply to the case. In such cases the evaluator could explain the potential risk if the allegations were true and why the evaluator does not believe the accusation. Instead the evaluator and the court never discuss these vital issues because no one making the decision or helping the court make the decision have the knowledge or training to recognize these safety factors. In other words the unqualified professionals routinely make recommendations affecting the safety of children without ever understanding or considering the risk. Malpractice is the most, generous term I can think of to describe this dereliction of duty. Only a broken system can continue to rely on evaluators and other court professionals in domestic violence cases who have virtually no training or understanding of safety and lethality issues just because there is a long history of making this mistake.

Recognizing Domestic Violence

Domestic violence abusers present many unacceptable risks to children, but the courts cannot protect children if they are unable to recognize the abuser’s pattern of domestic violence tactics. Every year 58,000 children are forced into custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. Judges make these dangerous mistakes because they are relying on court professionals who do not know how to recognize domestic violence or minimize its significance. They often compound the harm to children by denying them normal access to their mothers by punishing mothers for making abuse allegations the courts assume are false because court professionals failed to understand the significance of the available evidence.

When we seek help with a medical problem, doctors often seek to rule out various possible causes in order to make a diagnosis. Domestic violence experts understand that context is important in recognizing domestic violence, but the psychologists and psychiatrists relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and routinely seek to rule out allegations of domestic violence based upon out of context information that often is not probative.

We have often seen inadequately trained court professionals dismiss valid domestic violence allegations because the mother returned to her abuser, sought a protective order, but failed to follow-through, did not have medical or police records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other valid reasons. Another common mistake is for court professionals to observe children interact with their father and when the children do not show fear the professional assumes the father cannot possibly be abusive. The children understand that the father would never hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. In fact they could be punished later if they showed fear. These are all very common situations so if evaluators or other unqualified court professionals discredit allegations based on non-probative information like this, many valid domestic violence complaints will be denied. This is exactly what is happening in our custody courts.

At the same time court professionals are mistakenly discrediting abuse allegations for the wrong reasons, they are missing important evidence that supports the complaints. Often this is because the professionals are only looking for evidence of physical abuse. When judges lament the difficulty of deciding a he-said-she-said case, they are really referencing their failure to recognize the significance of many pieces of evidence that would have made the case easy to understand. The failure of most court professionals to understand domestic violence dynamics is an important contributor to their inability to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

Domestic violence are tactics men use to maintain power and control over their partners. With a few exceptions, the abusers don’t abuse her in order to gain pleasure from her suffering. They also don’t abuse because they are out of control or she “pushed his buttons.” In many custody cases he “only” hit her once or twice because that was sufficient for his purpose. He can then use the same tone of voice, body language or other reference to his assault and she will be coerced to do what he wants. Unqualified professionals often take the fact he has not hit her in a long time to mean he is now safe. Most abuser tactics are neither physical nor illegal. They are behaviors designed to coerce, intimidate and control their victims. These include tactics to isolate her from friends and family, monitor her behavior, control the finances, and intimidate her such as by threats to go after custody if she leaves him. Emotional and psychological abuse are also part of his pattern of controlling behaviors.

Many court professionals have been misled to believe contested custody cases are “high conflict” cases. They understand this to mean the parties are angry with each other and act out in ways that hurt the children. The actual research demonstrates a large majority of contested cases are actually domestic violence cases. They can’t be settled because the father is willing to hurt the children in order to regain control. Mothers are unwilling to agree to arrangements that harm their children, but are often blamed for not cooperating. We repeatedly see fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seeking custody when she leaves him as a tactic to force her to return or punish her for leaving. The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave. This is why 75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. These are the fathers we see in contested custody cases. This is why over the last few years we have documented at least two hundred children murdered by fathers involved in contested custody cases often with the unwitting assistance of the courts.

Too often court professionals are so delighted that a father wants to be involved with his children that the court professionals never look at his motivation. In the notorious Shockome case, the father openly admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she has no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. He told the court his motivation for seeking to take the children from their mother, but the judge and evaluator never considered this crucial evidence because they failed to understand its significance. Repeatedly we see cases in which the court removes children from their safe mothers who have been the children’s primary attachment figures and give custody to the fathers in the belief the father would be more likely to promote the mother’s relationship with the children. As soon as the father gains control he destroys that relationship. These mistakes are completely avoidable if court professionals consider the fathers’ motivation.

The Mistake of Minimizing Domestic Violence

While evaluators and other court professionals are generally aware that domestic violence is harmful to children, many place less importance on this issue than it deserves because they are unfamiliar with the research that demonstrates the extent of the harm to children. The problem is compounded because most of these professionals have repeatedly heard only the first half of an important sentence. They have heard children do better with both parents in their lives, but missed the rest of the sentence which is unless one of the parents is abusive.

Fathers who commit domestic violence are significantly more likely to also directly abuse the children. Even if he doesn’t, witnessing domestic violence interferes with children’s ability to reach their developmental milestones and makes them more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behaviors that make it less likely for children to reach their potential. We often see court professionals pay more attention to the anger and emotion of the mother, “friendly parent” issues, superior income and resources and other similar issues that have not been shown to have long-term effects on children instead of the father’s history of abuse. This mistake is made because of the lack of domestic violence understanding on the part of many of the evaluators and other court professionals relied on by judges.

The Most Common “Mythtake” Custody Courts Make

The new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan found that evaluators and other court professionals with inadequate domestic violence training were more likely to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse and as a result make recommendations that work poorly for children. Deliberate false allegations by mothers occurs only one or two percent of the time, but the myth which is encouraged by abuser rights groups and the professionals they support contribute to frequent mistakes by custody courts that dismiss valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse. Many of the deeply flawed practices such as parental alienation, “friendly parent” and pathologizing mothers are based on this myth. The myth also encourages gender bias and confirmation bias. This is why experts who know the truth and have the training they need are able to make decisions that work best for children.

The Justice Department study also determined that recommendations by social workers and lawyers work better for children than ones by psychologists and psychiatrists. This conclusion goes against conventional wisdom and standard custody court assumptions that professionals with more formal education would be more qualified. The problem is that psychologists and psychiatrists were less likely to use a holistic approach (thus missing the context of domestic violence issues) and more often rely on psychological tests that were not made for the population usually seen in custody cases. These tests encourage the professionals to focus on issues far less important than domestic violence while contributing nothing towards recognizing domestic violence.

The study also found that evaluators tended to pay much too much attention to mothers’ anger and emotions in comparison to how this impacts their parenting ability. This tended to support the use of gender stereotypes and biases. Numerous court sponsored gender bias committees have found widespread gender bias including the frequent practice of blaming mothers for the actions of their abusers. This is exactly what happens when court professionals blame mothers for their anger and emotion instead of fathers for their continuing abuse that causes this anger and emotion.

Especially significant is the DOJ finding that evaluators working for the court or the county make recommendations that work better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. Protective mothers have long complained about a cottage industry of evaluators and GALs that favor abusive fathers. This research confirms the mothers’ complaints and undermines the common court assumption that evaluators and GALs are neutral. The study demonstrates those professionals paid for each case separately do an inferior job. Most contested custody cases are really domestic violence cases and abusive fathers use economic abuse and control as part of their pattern of abuse. This means they control the family finances so court professionals, like Richard Gardner have figured out the best way to make a large income is to support approaches that favor abusers. Thus we often see attorneys representing abusive fathers and GALs who tend to support fathers recommending “fathers’ rights” evaluators. This gives even good judges little chance to recognize the domestic violence in the case.

Ignorance Is Not Neutral: It Favors Abusers

We sometimes hear about a judge refusing to participate in domestic violence training or read current research on the grounds that such information would interfere with his neutrality. More frequently judges refuse to listen to testimony from a domestic violence expert because the judge has been on the bench for many years and so doesn’t need to learn more about domestic violence. Even more commonly we see judges and other court professionals treat domestic violence advocates as biased partisans because “they are always against domestic violence.”

This lack of critical thinking contributes to the widespread mishandling of domestic violence custody cases. Abuser rights groups often argue that when they come to court mothers and fathers should be treated the same. Judges often accept and support such statements because they superficially sound reasonable and never consider the unstated part of the statement “regardless of past parenting.” If courts are working for the best interests of the children, they need to consider that children usually need one parent more than the other. Their primary attachment figure, whether mother or father is far more important to their well- being than the other parent. A non-abusive parent is far more valuable to a child than an abusive one. And yet we often hear judges uncritically repeating the belief that the child needs both parents equally.

Many judges wrongly assume that the mental health professionals working in custody cases have the needed domestic violence expertise or that the couple of hours of required training often obtained by court professionals is sufficient. Many professionals and others do not look at domestic violence as a subject for which specialized training and knowledge is needed. Most people have had some experience with domestic violence as a victim, offender or knowing or working with someone who is. This does not tell them if their experience was typical or unusual and fails to provide context or an understanding of domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research.

The custody court system has been extremely defensive in refusing to adopt needed reforms in the face of multiple confirmations from many varied sources that the present practices are working poorly for the children overseen by custody courts. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the courts frequently use experts without adequate training in domestic violence and this results in the use of myths instead of current scientific research and outcomes that hurt children. In comparision, communities in which child protective agencies consult with domestic violence advocates the resulting arrangements benefit children.

The evaluators who testify in court cannot tell us how their practices and approaches to domestic violence have worked out for the children they have seen because they are making recommendations based on their personal beliefs and biases instead of current scientific research that they are often unfamiliar with. When the evaluators are challenged for their ignorance about this research, courts rarely use this to disqualify or discredit their recommendations.

The research that establishes that 98% of mothers’ domestic violence allegations are honest, but 70-83% of the time the alleged abuser wins custody does not tell us a specific case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate a large majority of these cases are wrongly decided. Even worse are the sexual abuse cases in which 85% of the cases result in custody for the alleged offender. These cases are more difficult because the mothers usually did not witness the alleged sexual abuse. Some of the concerns could be caused by a child’s sexualized behavior or complaints that might be caused by boundary violations rather than molestation. Nevertheless, the outcomes establish that the courts often send children to live with sexual abusers and punish mothers for good faith reports. In many of these cases the mother was the primary attachment figure so should have received custody even if no sexual abuse occurred.

In many cases in which the custody court decided the father was safe he is later convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse or kills the mother and/or children. We also see alleged abusers destroy the relationships between mothers and children once they gain control of the children which confirms their purpose in seeking custody was to punish the mother for leaving. The reports of the Courageous Kids who were children sent by custody courts to live with alleged abusers and now describing their experiences after aging out of the court order further confirms the frequency of courts giving custody to abusers.

A chapter written by sociologists Sharon Araji and Rebecca Bosek in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY provides multiple additional confirmations of the frequent mistakes in domestic violence custody cases. They interviewed protective mothers in Alaska and then compared the responses to similar studies in four other states. They found substantial complaints by the mothers of mistreatment by the courts and failure to protect their children. The complaints were supported by the results in the five studies and in a later study by Voices of Women that reviewed reports from mothers in New York City Family Court. These were not random samples and courts might argue the mothers were not objective. Drs. Araji and Bosek covered this potential concern by comparing the mothers’ complaints with other scientific research. The research confirmed what the mothers were saying. This is significant because it confirms the research that demonstrates mothers’ complaints are reliable and confirms the problems cited concerning the courts’ response to domestic violence cases are valid.

Domestic violence advocates constitute the only profession that works full time on domestic violence issues. The widespread mistake by many court professionals to treat them as if they are biased or partisan is based upon a lack of critical thinking. If courts needed to respond to a rash of arson fires, they would seek help from the experts which would be the firefighting community. The firefighters would be treated as the experts they are even if they had no advanced degrees or even a college degree. Through training and experience firefighters know best how to recognize arson, prevent and respond to arson. There are three important differences between arson and domestic violence crimes. One is that arson has always been a crime so there is no history of society tolerating or encouraging arson. If a landlord were particularly cruel or dishonest no one would say the arsonist was justified in burning down his building. The second is that most firefighters are men and in our still sexist society people pay more attention to what men say and treat it as having more value. Finally there are no arsonist’s rights groups that can lobby to minimize or justify their crimes.

There was a time when society had not reached a consensus about domestic violence, but those days are past. Every state has made a variety of domestic violence acts crimes and every state has ordered courts to take domestic violence seriously in custody cases based on research that establishes the harm to children. Domestic violence advocates understand the dynamics of intimate partner abuse and how to recognize the pattern of abuse. This is an area that the court professionals repeatedly miss because they don’t have the training and often don’t even realize they are missing crucial information. Advocates have no desire or reason to want false allegations to succeed and in fact this would make their job more difficult. Their goal is to keep victims safe and prevent domestic violence. This coincides with the laws and policies in every state. Statements and practices that minimize the role of domestic violence advocates or treat them as if they were partisan should be viewed not just as wrong, but a demonstration of gender bias.

Stare decisis is a fundamental legal principle created to prevent the need to relitigate the same issues over and over. We have every reason to respect this principle, but it has been misused in domestic violence cases. The assumption is that once a court makes a decision (after any appeals), we must assume the decision is correct. Unfortunately the assumption that the decisions were correct has discouraged court officials from investigating how their decisions have worked out. Judge Sol Gothard wrote, “If the court system had commissioned research to determine how the present practices are working, the result would be the information contained in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The research findings demonstrate court practices are outdated and their confidence misplaced.” In reality, these decisions are predictions that children would do better living with one parent than the other. It is appropriate for courts to study how these predictions have worked out just as it is proper to reconsider past decisions based on new research and information.

When allegations or evidence of domestic violence are part of a custody case, a court must consider current scientific research about domestic violence and learn from the knowledge and experience of domestic violence advocates or other experts. Hopefully it won’t be long until we are shaking our heads and wondering how it could have taken so long to appreciate what should be obvious. A custody court that refuses to listen to a domestic violence expert is demonstrating its bias and committing malpractice. The failure to consider domestic violence research and expertise should be grounds for reversal. The flawed and outdated practices that have ruined too many children’s lives have already been tolerated for far too long.

Eleven years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer HAL RICHARDSON

2011-07-31T10:49:00.001-07:00

HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ALL ABUSERS and ENABLERS (aka child traffickers) that have and are continuing the abuse by Hal Richardson. With the help of the local CourtWhores, M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Judge David Debenham, Don and Jason Hoffman

Eleven years ago today Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to a convicted batterer on a ‘snail mail’ from crooked Judge Richard Anderson. He made a ‘deal’ and without motion from either party, without hearing he simply on his own ‘switched custody’ from Mother to ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON.

Mother Claudine Dombrowski has had little to no contact with her daughter since this illegal ‘action’ and ruling was made. The Judges following after this decision could have at anytime corrected a very wrong very unethical very damaging ruling.

Instead, they continued ‘litigation abuse’ of a battered mother and forced her only child- HER daughter to live with out her mother and in constant fear.

[scribd id=43805172 key=key-18j7hcjx5kgmiopq3ylk mode=list]

2000 July 31-- Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON

HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS ETC…

WHAT KIND A EVIL BASTARD WOULD HURT HIS CHILD SO BADLY BY TAKING HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER? RIKKI DOMBROWSKI THE WORLD IS APPALLED, KANSAS IS SICK. THIS MAN WILL KNOW JUSTICE ONE DAY—GOD WILL JUDGE ALL WHO HELPED TO KEEP YOU SEPERATED FROM YOUR LOVING MOTHER.

GOD’S JUDGEMENT DAY—AND TOPEKA KANSAS WILL BURN

95LA014502-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1OR
97LA009121-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
98LA006122-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
92CV000432-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96CV000937-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
92LA000089-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
96LA012692-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97LA017898-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97U 000055-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,1D
90LA007629-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,1D
97LA018158-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
96LA003402-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
98U 000141-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
04SC000200-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,1D
03C 000086-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,184D
95U 000500-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
03L 010117-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
05L 001833-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95SC000448-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95LN000161-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1OP
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
94SC000355-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
96LA019246-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
96LA000348-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97CV000960-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97LA011585-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,2D
08SC000096-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1P
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)2OE
97CV000778-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson...

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR...

3 p.

1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

Rene Netherton’s Threats exposed at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY , 2011

2011-07-31T07:04:00.001-07:00

Video streaming by Ustream

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11918412

Rene watch through the 2nd presenter—you are famous!!

I am the Mother of Rikki Dombrowski.

2011-07-29T08:12:00.001-07:00

(a forward from Claudine Dombrowski)

I am the Mother of Rikki Dombrowski. I am denied any contact with her by a 8x Criminally Convicted Batterer HAL RICHARDSON. She lives in hell with the 'perp'. I did NOT abandon you Rikki, I want to be with you. Don't give up baby. I love you!-xoxo, mom

I Love you Rikki Dombrowski- my daughter. Don’t Give up baby!

Two years ago my mother died- Rikki's granny. Her father would NOT let Rikki go to funeral.

I made this video for three generations that have and are enduring abuse by Hal Richardson.

Rikki’s father had me found in contempt for the video- Sentence: 30 days in jail and $1500.00 fine, for posting it on line so that Rikki could see it.

To this day I do not know if she ever has. They say- they will not let me see my child because they do not want her to know how abusive her father is- "that's not in her best interest'.-- insanity huh? Nope. Family Court in Topeka, Kansas

Kansas Parenting time; visitation orders; enforcement

2011-07-29T07:15:00.001-07:00

Article 16. Divorce and Maintenance

back to top 60-1616 Parenting time; visitation orders; enforcement

(a) Parents. A parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time unless the court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
(b) Grandparents and stepparents. Grandparents and stepparents may be granted visitation rights.
(c) Modification. The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time or visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.
(d) Enforcement of rights. An order granting visitation rights or parenting time pursuant to this section may be enforced in accordance with the uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, or K.S.A. 23-701, and amendments thereto.
(e) Repeated denial of rights, effect. Repeated unreasonable denial of or interference with visitation rights or parenting time granted pursuant to this section may be considered a material change of circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of legal custody, residency, visitation or parenting time.
(f) Court ordered exchange or visitation at a child exchange and visitation center. (1) The court may order exchange or visitation to take place at a child exchange and visitation center, as established in K.S.A. 75-720 and amendments thereto.
(2) Any party may petition the court to modify an order granting visitation rights or parenting time to require that the exchange or transfer of children for visitation or parenting time take place at a child exchange and visitation center, as established in K.S.A. 75-720 and amendments thereto. The court may modify an order granting visitation whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child.

What is Domestic Violence?

2011-07-27T06:01:00.001-07:00

National Domestic Violence Hotline
1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Physical Abuse: Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, etc are types of physical abuse. This type of abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her.

Sexual Abuse: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to, marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.

Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual's sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem is abusive. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one's abilities, name-calling, or damaging one's relationship with his or her children.

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

Psychological Abuse: Elements of psychological abuse include - but are not limited to - causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.

Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating.

Domestic violence not only affects those who are abused, but also has a substantial effect on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence, are among those seriously affected by this crime. Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to numerous social and physical problems, but also teaches them that violence is a normal way of life - therefore, increasing their risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers.

Sources: National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Center for Victims of Crime, and WomensLaw.org.

Dear Custody Court Judge: EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

2011-07-20T06:55:00.001-07:00

EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

By Barry Goldstein

Dear Custody Court Judge:

The research is now clear that certain extreme decisions in domestic violence custody cases that have become all too common are contributing to an increase in the frequency of domestic violence homicide and other harmful consequences. This is established in the leading resources about domestic violence and custody including THE BATTERER AS PARENT by Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY edited by Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and the major new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan. Judges should be aware of the research that demonstrates the danger of creating these dangerous decisions avoid these decisions in the future and modify existing arrangements that create substantial risks to the children.

The decisions that must be avoided and corrected are ones in which an alleged abuser is given custody and a safe, protective mother is limited to supervised or no visitation. I will more fully describe these dangerous cases below and I am not saying it can never be right to give someone custody who was accused of domestic violence or child abuse or that a mother who makes abuse allegations should never be denied normal visitation.

I will discuss the harm and danger of these extreme decisions below, but judges should be aware that these decisions are probably the largest factor in the recent increase in domestic violence homicide. Furthermore these extreme decisions are never in the best interests of children even when the court is right that the abuse allegations are false and the mother seeks to take the father out of the child's life for bad faith reasons. More commonly, the research demonstrates that court professionals who used flawed practices to justify the extreme decision also got the underlying facts wrong. Judges should look to the specialized body of research now available that can help courts make the best decisions in domestic violence custody cases.

Description of Extreme Cases

The extreme cases I am speaking about include evidence or at least allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. It is not limited to cases in which the allegations are confirmed or believed. The research establishes that courts fail to recognize valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse with frightening frequency because of the outdated and discredited practices that continue to be used in domestic violence custody cases despite the scientific research now available. Furthermore, even when courts reject abuse allegations because of inadequate proof or in rare cases in which mothers make deliberately false allegations, courts have a tendency to punish mothers in ways that are harmful to the children.

Most of these cases involve mothers who are the primary attachment figures for their children. Primary attachment is created in the first couple of years of a child’s life so later care or custody of a child does not change the primary attachment figure. Some court professionals confuse continuity, which is a valid consideration with primary attachment which is far more significant to children. Primary attachment is often minimized by custody courts because of stereotypes and gender bias. Mothers are often expected to provide most of the child care so they receive little credit or benefit for doing so even though it makes a big difference to the well being of children. In fairness to judges, many attorneys fail to present evidence about the mothers’ early care for her children and the significance of that care.

In attempting to treat both parents equally, courts often fail to understand that the parents may not be of equal importance to the well being of their children based on past parenting such as superior parenting skills, non-abusiveness and primary attachment. When a court treats unequal parents as if their value to the child is the same, this is actually a bias favoring the weaker parent and certainly not in the best interests of the children. Children who are separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when they are older. It cannot be beneficial to subject children to such substantial risks unless the primary attachment figure is unsafe, but courts routinely do so when they treat alienation as if it were more significant than primary attachment or abuse.

If custody courts were acting in the best interests of children as required by statute, they would be weighing the harms and benefits of any proposed custody-visitation arrangement. So if a mother was a drug addict she could not be relied upon to keep her children safe and healthy. If she beat the children, that would create an obvious safety risk. If she had a mental illness so serious that it would prevent her from taking proper care of her children, this would create a safety risk. I must emphasize, however that many of the mental health diagnoses seen in custody court are inaccurate because of flawed practices and biases and in any event do not create a legitimate safety issue. The kinds of safety issues discussed in this paragraph are more serious than the risks of separating a child from her primary attachment figure and would justify the extreme decisions discussed in this article. The problem is that most of the extreme decisions are justified by reasons that do not involve a safety issue and are likely to create more harm than benefit for the children.

The extreme decisions frequently imposed on protective mothers come in the context of a court system that is extremely reluctant to restrict fathers who abused their partners to supervised visitation as recommended by leading domestic violence experts such as Lundy Bancroft and Peter Jaffe. Children who witness domestic violence are prevented from reaching their developmental goals which in turn interferes with their ability to reach future developmental milestones. These children are also more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behavior when they are older including substance abuse, self-mutilation, suicide, prostitution, crime, teen pregnancy, school drop-out and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. Again these are valid safety concerns that justify visitation restrictions. Some unqualified professionals unfamiliar with domestic violence dynamics minimize these risks because the parties are separated or the father stopped assaulting his partner when he no longer had access to her. Domestic violence is not caused by the victim’s behavior, but by the abuser’s belief system. There is no reason to believe the end of the relationship will change his beliefs so if the father is given custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness his abuse of future partners. Over forty states have created court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias particularly against mothers in custody cases. The willingness and almost eagerness to engage in these extreme decisions against protective mothers, together with the reluctance to limit contact with dangerous fathers demonstrates the impact of gender bias in domestic violence custody cases.

For purposes of this article, these extreme cases are ones in which there is no legitimate safety issue to justify decisions that place children in jeopardy. One common example of a non-safety issue is the use of alienation to justify the extreme decisions. One of the problems with alienation is that courts often allow fathers to make a general complaint claiming alienation without specifying exactly what the mother is alleged to have done. This makes it difficult to defend and raises due process concerns. If the concern is that the mother is making negative statements about the father, where is the research that demonstrates the long term harm to children hearing these statements? There is none. Children hear negative statements like this even in intact families. The most likely result is to harm the relationship with the parent making these statements if they are false. Even when the statements cause some harm to the relationship, these effects are generally short term. More often in domestic violence cases the real problem with the father’s relationship is his mistreatment of the mother or children as when Alec Baldwin called his daughter vile names, threatened her and then wanted to blame the mother for the natural effects of his abusive behavior. We often see mental health professionals lacking domestic violence expertise pathologize the victim and use this to justify the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article. I will discuss this in more detail below, but these are rarely safety issues. Courts also sometimes impose the extreme decisions to punish mothers who continue to believe their allegations of abuse after the court denied them, criticize the judge or otherwise act in ways the judge disapproves of. Given the harm to children of separating them from their primary attachment figure, none of these justifications rise to the level of safety issues so that the restrictions on the children’s ability to see their primary attachment figure are far more harmful than any benefit the court believes it is providing for the children.

Extreme Decisions Contribute to Rising Domestic Violence Homicide Rate

When domestic violence first became a public issue over thirty years ago there was no research to inform decision making by institutions charged with responding to domestic violence. The standard police response was to separate the parties and have the abuser walk around the block to cool off. This is how police officers were trained to respond and was considered best practices. Later, researchers found that this response was ineffective. In 95% of cases in which men murdered their intimate partner, the police had been called and used the standard response. On average the police had been called to the home in response to the abuser’s violence five times. The information from the research and lobbying by those working to end domestic violence led police departments across the country to adopt a pro arrest policy. These and other policies designed to hold abusers accountable and make it easier for women to leave their abusers resulted in a significant reduction in domestic violence homicides. The benefit of strict accountability was confirmed by some communities like Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California that obtained even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide by stricter enforcement of criminal laws and restraining orders against abusers.

The steady decrease in domestic violence homicides continued until recently when many states reported a resurgence in intimate partner homicides. Some people have suggested the poor economy has caused this increase, but a lot of research and information suggests the frequency of custody court decisions favoring dangerous abusers and particularly the extreme decisions discussed in this article have been a major factor in the increase in domestic violence homicides. A large part of the reduction in domestic violence homicides had been aided by providing victims with safer ways to leave their abuser. Court decisions, particularly in criminal cases taking domestic violence more seriously sent an important message that society no longer tolerated abusive behavior. The frequent custody decisions supporting abusers have undermined this progress and sent the opposite message. Domestic violence advocates have told me that they are seeing more mothers staying with their abusers and taking his beatings because they are afraid the custody court will separate them from their children and they won’t be able to protect them. Of course some of these mothers do not survive this decision. At the same time, custody decisions that minimize the significance or fail to recognize the father’s abuse are sending a terrible message that society will tolerate this abuse. For many years, Dutchess County, New York permitted many court professionals with strong fathers’ rights sympathies to work in the custody court. This led to numerous extreme decisions against safe, protective mothers. This in turn led to a series of domestic violence homicides and now the community is trying to create a coordinated community response and change practices that have encouraged these tragedies including the murder of a police officer by an abusive father in the aftermath of one of these murders.

Custody courts also developed their practices to respond to domestic violence cases at a time when no useful research was available. The courts turned to mental health professionals for expertise based on the widespread assumption that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. We now have a substantial body of research that establishes these assumptions were wrong and the standard practices are working poorly for children. The evaluators and other mental health professionals routinely relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and usually unfamiliar with the specialized body of research now available. This has led judges and lawyers to be taught a lot of misinformation and continue to use outdated and discredited practices. Significantly, the Department of Justice study found many evaluators and other court professionals do not have the domestic violence training they need. Those professionals without the needed training are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse and therefore make recommendations harmful to children. We often see court professionals make reference to this myth and it is especially influential in the extreme decisions discussed in this article. Even if you know mothers in contested custody cases make deliberate false allegations only one or two percent of the time, you may be influenced by other court professionals making recommendations based on this myth. Parental Alienation Syndrome (also often referred to as parental alienation or just alienation because of its notoriety), which was recently rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V (that lists all valid mental health diagnoses) because there is no scientific basis for it, is based on the assumption that virtually all allegations of abuse by mothers are false. In fairness to judges, they were often never told that PAS is based not on any research but the beliefs and biases of Richard Gardner. Gardner, who made a fortune providing expert testimony for abusers made many statements to the effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. It is hard to imagine many judges would want to be connected with such beliefs if they had known the basis for the PAS formulation. Alienation tactics based on PAS are probably the most common basis for the extreme decisions as the theory recommends punitive actions against protective mothers without considering the harm to children.

Most court professionals have been taught that contested custody are ”high conflict” cases by which they mean the parents are angry with each other and act out in ways that hurt their children. The actual research shows a different story. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Even abusive fathers who are willing to seek custody for strategic reasons will ultimately settle usually for an unfair financial advantage and often a custodial arrangement that gives him some continued control over his victim. Even though these fathers are abusive they are not willing to hurt their children in order to punish the mother. Of course most custody cases do not involve domestic violence and these are easily settled once the parties get past their hurt. Accordingly over 95% of custody cases are settled more or less amicably.

The real problem is the 3.8% of cases that go to trial and usually far beyond. The vast majority of these cases, probably around 90% are domestic violence cases that involve the worst of the worst abusers. These are usually cases where the father had little involvement with the children during the relationship, but suddenly demands custody as a way to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. Abusers tend to be good at manipulation and court professionals are usually happy to find a father who appears to want to be involved in his children’s lives. The flawed “high conflict” approach works great for abusers because it requires the parties to interact and cooperate with each other. This gives him the access to his victim he sought by playing the custody card. At the same time it pressures the mother to cooperate with her abuser and punishes her reluctance to interact with someone she experienced as dangerous and difficult. In other words the “high conflict” approach gives abusers a huge advantage.

The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave him. They usually respond to her leaving in one or more of three ways. They respond by killing her which is why75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. They respond by killing their children. In the last couple of years over 175 children have been murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases. Most often they respond by going after custody as a tactic to regain control and too often custody courts help them do so.

In one California case featured on the Dr. Phil Program, Katie Tagle asked Judge Lemkau to limit the father to supervised visitation after he threatened to kill the baby. The transcript of the hearing shows that the judge stated he thought the mother was lying and threatened to punish her. During the unsupervised visitation, the father murdered seven-month-old Baby Wyatt and himself. I am sure Judge Lemkau was sincere when he expressed how sorry he was for what happened, but said there was nothing he could have done based on the information before him. In a sense, he is right. As long as he and other judges continue to use the outdated and discredited practices routinely relied on in domestic violence custody cases, you have little chance to protect the children whose futures you must determine.

The first priority in any custody case ought to be safety, but that cannot happen as long as custody courts continue to rely on professionals without the needed expertise in domestic violence. Many communities have developed practices where child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence issues. They cross-train staffs and when a potential domestic violence case develops, the caseworker will consult with a domestic violence advocate and even bring her to the home. This has resulted in a better ability to recognize domestic violence when it is present and respond in ways that benefit children. This should be understood as a fundamental part of best practices. Psychiatrists and psychologists are encouraged to consult with experts in fields in which they do not have expertise when that is a vital part of the case they are working on. Evaluators rarely consult with domestic violence advocates or other experts even though they rarely possess the domestic violence expertise they need or familiarity with current scientific research. Domestic violence advocates routinely conduct safety assessments for their clients. There are many common abuser behaviors such as strangling or choking his victim, raping or attempting to rape her and hitting her while pregnant that are associated with higher rates of lethality. We virtually never see evaluators discussing the significance of these and other dangerous behaviors. If they are not doing a lethality assessment, the evaluators cannot tell judges which alleged abusers are unsafe. Instead we routinely see evaluators focus on less important issues because they don’t have the expertise to recognize the dangers. Even worse they frequently seek to punish mothers who know their abusers are dangerous after failing to recognize the danger because of their lack of expertise. This is common in the extreme decisions discussed in this article.

There is good reason to believe there is a strong connection to the extreme decisions discussed in this article and the sudden rise in domestic violence homicides after many years of decline. These cases are dealing with the most dangerous abusers. The frequency of these extreme decisions has led many victims to stay with their abusers. Some of these mothers will not survive the decision. Perhaps most significant is that these decisions send a horrible message of support for abusers which only serves to support their dangerous beliefs. I am sure this is not your intent, but it is the message these extreme decisions send to the community.

These Extreme Decisions are almost Always Harmful to Children

The extreme decisions described in this article are the focus of much of the review of domestic violence custody cases because they trigger the most legitimate complaints. Thousands of these cases have been reviewed and we rarely find any attempt by the court professionals to weigh the harm caused by these decisions with whatever benefit the court believes it is providing to the children. The decisions are virtually always wrong because separating a child from her primary attachment figure significantly increases the child’s risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older. When the justifications for limiting the mother’s contact with the child to supervised or less do not involve safety issues, the restrictions on the mother’s access are more harmful than any benefits. In other words, even if the court’s factual findings are accurate, the decision is a mistake.

Many of these decisions are based on findings that the mother suffers from some kind of mental illness. Repeatedly we have seen unqualified and biased mental health professionals pathologize the victim and impose false or exaggerated diagnoses based upon considering facts out of context. In many cases mothers have been labeled delusional or paranoid because professionals without adequate training in domestic violence failed to recognize the proof of the father’s domestic violence. Other common mistakes are based on the misuse of psychological testing. Most judges and lawyers are not aware that these tests were not created for the populations seen in custody court and are based on probabilities so may not apply to the parties in a specific case. The tests were designed for patients in mental hospitals who have severe mental illnesses. In the context of family court, parents under stress or with minor differences from the average person are diagnosed as if the differences are significant. Under the best of circumstances, the results of psychological tests are accurate between 55-65% of the time. If I went to court and told you that 98% of domestic violence allegations by mothers are accurate, you would quite properly tell me that you have to look at each case separately because this father might be part of the 2% and yet the courts routinely rely on tests that don’t apply to at least 35% of the parties. Even worse, the tests are less reliable when given to parties under stress such as victims of domestic violence and those involved in difficult custody cases. Evaluators rarely explain that the tests are based on probabilities. Repeatedly we have seen mothers who have no problems dealing with family, jobs, school and other parts of their lives labeled with disqualifying mental illnesses. While they may be impacted by the pressure of custody court and the use of litigation abuse by the father, these mothers are safe as parents and sane in every other part of their lives. In almost all of these cases the mother has always taken good care of the children and the father allowed and often demanded she provide the child care right up until she decided to leave him. She did not suddenly become crazy because she left him except in his eyes.

Another common excuse for the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article is some version of alienation. This is a common abuser tactic and in many of these decisions the problems with the relationship between the father and children were caused by the father’s behavior. Court professionals have constantly heard and relied on half a sentence. The half they are familiar with is that children do better with both parents in their lives. This is a true statement, but the rest of the statement is unless one of the parents is abusive. Interestingly this statement seems to get little consideration when a mother is taken out of the child’s life. As mentioned earlier, alienation issues tend to be short lived and there is no research that demonstrates the kind of long term harm that has been shown to children separated from their primary attachment figure. I am not saying that alienating behaviors are not a legitimate issue, but only there is no basis in scientific research that justifies the harm done to a child in losing regular contact with her primary attachment figure. Supervised visitation is not sufficient to avoid this serious harm.

These extreme decisions are also made as a way to punish the mother for continuing to believe her abuse allegations after the court denies them, her continued fear or anger towards her alleged abuser, attempts to obtain publicity, failure to pay support or economic sanctions, criticism of the judge and other similar issues. Courts that limit mothers’ contact with the children for these types of reasons fail to recognize they are really punishing and hurting the children. Significantly, the motivation of most abusers seeking custody is to punish the mother for leaving and it is particularly harmful for courts to help him do so. The fathers understand the best way to hurt the mother is to hurt her children, but the judge is supposed to help the children. Even if the facts the judge believes justifies action against the mother are true, they can never justify extreme decisions that place the future of the children in jeopardy.

Sexual Abuse Cases

Many of the extreme decisions come in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse. By the time children reach the age of eighteen, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The stereotypical rapist or sexual abuser is a stranger, but 83% of rape and sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows. For young children, this is often their father, but when allegations are made by mothers in custody cases, the alleged abuser receives custody 85% of the time and the mother is often denied any meaningful relationship with the children she tried to protect. A large majority of these decisions are wrong and it is extremely difficult for judges to get these cases right with the deeply flawed practices that are standard in these cases.

Many years ago, three brave children complained their father was physically and sexually abusing them. The mother obtained a protective order limiting the father to supervised visitation and sought custody. The children told the CPS caseworker, their attorney, the judge and the court-appointed evaluator what their father did to them. As is common in these cases, these professionals decided the mother was brainwashing the children and they threatened to take custody away from her unless she stopped. The judge ordered a resumption of unsupervised visitation that weekend. Before the first visitation could start, the father was confronted by the baby sitter in the presence of the children’s law guardian and admitted kissing his daughters on their privates. The law guardian immediately made a motion to stop the visitation which I supported. The judge consulted the evaluator who said the father used bad judgment, but there was no reason to stop the visitation. During the first visit the four-year-old was penetrated for the first time.

I called CPS based on the father’s admission which had not been part of the original investigation. When the judge found out he yelled and screamed at me saying that the allegations had already been investigated. This time a new caseworker did a thorough job and found the father had done even worse than we alleged. They filed charges against the father and he never again had anything but supervised visitation.

The caseworker and I were invited to a celebratory dinner after the mother won custody. The children had gifts for us, but most important they had a name for us. They called us believers because we believed them when all the professionals charged with protecting them didn’t. There is no greater honor than to be called a believer and the problem is that a lot of custody court professionals are not believers. They instead believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations as again confirmed in the recent Justice Department study.

The evaluator in this case was a psychiatrist who was the favorite evaluator of all the judges in Westchester County, New York. He had a very positive reputation and in fact was excellent in cases that did not involve domestic violence or child abuse. Many years after this case a mother was pressured to accept joint custody with her abuser and this psychiatrist was appointed to resolve any issues the parents could not decide on their own. The mother learned that the father’s new partner had suffered a mental breakdown at a birthday party attended by her son. She called the psychiatrist to discuss how to handle the situation. The psychiatrist responded completely appropriately and then told her that when she first called he thought she was going to claim that her son was sexually abused AND HE WAS FULLY PREPARED NOT TO BELIEVE IT. In other words, no matter how strong the evidence, if this evaluator was appointed (and he handled most custody cases in Westchester), a mother had virtually no chance of convincing him about her allegations of abuse and the judges were almost certain to follow his recommendation. While few evaluators would express their disbelief of all sexual abuse allegations so openly, his views are all too typical. This gives even good judges little chance to get sexual abuse cases right.

Sexual abuse is extremely difficult to prove especially with young children. Many professionals expect physical proof, but many forms of sexual abuse do not leave physical evidence and any evidence is often destroyed by the time the child reports the abuse. We often see valid claims of abuse dismissed for reasons that are not probative such as the failure of prosecutors or child protective to bring charges, the reluctance of children to discuss the abuse particularly with someone with whom they have not developed a trusting relationship with and unqualified professionals often take a child’s matter of fact demeanor as if it disproves the allegations. Most prosecutors know that victims often recant valid allegations of abuse for many good reasons, but custody court professionals routinely use this as absolute proof the mother pressured the child to make a false allegation.

When a mother or child makes allegations of sexual abuse the most likely circumstance is that the allegation is true. The next most likely is that the allegation is based upon behavior that made the child act out in ways that suggested sexual abuse but were actually boundary violations. Other common causes are good faith complaints that turn out not to be true or situations where there is not sufficient evidence to determine the validity of the allegations. The least likely cause is deliberate false allegations by mothers, but inadequately trained court professionals frequently jump to this conclusion which often results in the kind of extreme and mistaken decisions discussed in this article.

In one New Jersey case, DYFS and the court completely mishandled both the domestic violence and sexual abuse issues. DYFS has now adopted best practices for potential domestic violence cases by making consultation with domestic violence advocates a standard response. This has been shown to give them the best chance to recognize domestic violence and make arrangements that work best for children. This case started before they adopted best practices and so never consulted with a domestic violence advocate even though the case is ongoing. They failed to recognize the father’s history of domestic violence. After the father was given custody and the mother limited to supervised visitation, an unqualified therapist inadvertently discovered the father had broken into his previous girl friend’s apartment after they separated and she had to obtain a restraining order. The unqualified therapist forced the mother to have joint counseling with her abuser and ignored his discovery because he did not understand its significance. DYFS later hired a psychologist who was familiar with current scientific research and was the only professional hired by them to cite research to support her recommendations. She immediately understood his history of domestic violence, together with other evidence the unqualified professionals failed to understand the significance of, confirmed the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and should have resulted in a reversal of the mistaken living arrangements.

DYFS sought to limit the mother to supervised visitation after all their unqualified professionals decided she had made deliberately false allegations. The evidence included the decision by DYFS and the prosecutor not to bring charges. As discussed earlier, the difficulty in proving sexual abuse means the failure to press charges does not establish the allegations were false and in the case of the prosecutor the inability to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt certainly does not mean the charges were false. DYFS interviewed the child without developing a trusting relationship and when she didn’t immediately repeat her allegations or with other professionals was reluctant to speak about them they concluded the allegations were deliberately false. Reports from the child’s therapist with whom she had a trusting relationship showed that the child reported the abuse but was reluctant to speak about it and used a matter of fact tone. The unqualified professionals immediately assumed that either the allegations were true or deliberately false so when they discredited the allegations proceeded as if the mother deliberately made false allegations.

The psychologist later hired by DYFS reviewed the records and recognized that the facts used by DYFS to discredit the allegations were not probative and cited research to support her findings. Again DYFS and the court ignored the findings of the one professional, who was both neutral and familiar with current scientific research. In reality, this was a very young girl who did not know the significance of whatever was done to her. Something her father and grandmother did made her uncomfortable and she told the person she most trusted, her mother. It was difficult for her to tell others although she did tell her therapist and a few other professionals. She was uncomfortable speaking about it. The evidence does not definitively establish if she was sexually abused or if her boundaries were violated. These are the two possibilities supported by the evidence that the professionals should have focused on, but instead they focused on false allegations just as the Justice Department study says is done by professionals with inadequate training. The result is that the child is forced to live with a dangerous abuser and denied a normal relationship with her primary attachment figure who is a safe, protective mother. In other words the court created one of these extreme decisions because it relied on unqualified professionals and failed to look to current scientific research to inform its decision.

In a Dutchess County case, the mother did everything right and the actions she complained about were admitted and still she was found to have made false sexual abuse allegations to gain an advantage in the litigation. The mother met with the school nurse who told the mother about incidents in which her child acted out in a sexualized way. The nurse advised the mother to seek therapy for her son. She took the child to the family services center that is regularly used by the courts and police as the nurse suggested. They selected the therapist to treat her son. The mother was concerned that the father would scratch the children all over their almost naked bodies, but not on their privates. They reacted in an inappropriately excited way and begged their mother to do this to them. The therapist believed this constituted sexual abuse and called child protective. The mother begged her not to because she was afraid of the reaction by her abuser. During couples counseling, the therapist for the mother and father also concluded the father’s actions were sexually abusive. The father admitted what he did and promised not to do it anymore. CPS also confirmed what the father did, but did not consider this to constitute sexual abuse and so unfounded the case. In the custody decision the judge treated the allegations as if they were deliberately false and punished the mother even though the acts she complained of were confirmed and two neutral therapists believed the actions were harmful to the children. The abuser won custody and the mother, who had been the primary attachment figure, was limited to supervised visitation. When good judges use bad practices to create these extreme decisions, it is easier for bad judges to get away with the extreme decisions even when there is no basis because his decisions are not that different from the mistakes by good judges.

Extreme Decisions Usually Have Underlying Facts Wrong

When the mother is safe, decisions that give custody to the alleged abuser and limit her to supervised visitation are virtually always wrong because the harm of denying the children a normal relationship with their primary attachment figure is greater than any benefit the court believes it is providing. These wrong decisions can only be obtained through the use of deeply flawed practices so it is not surprising that courts often also made substantial mistakes in their factual findings.

Often the key to understanding the case has to do with the domestic violence allegations, but unfortunately, although most professionals now have some minimum amount of domestic violence training, they have never learned how to recognize domestic violence or the importance of consulting with a domestic violence expert who understands the dynamics of domestic violence and is familiar with current scientific research.

Judge Mike Brigner wrote that when he trains judges and other court professionals about domestic violence, the most common question he receives is what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they cite behaviors like returning to her abuser, seeking a restraining order and not following-up and the failure to have police or medical records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other reasons particularly if she is still living with him, but court professionals repeatedly treat these actions as if they prove her allegations are false. Another common mistake is for a professional to observe the children interact with their father and when they don’t show fear, the professionals assume it means the father could not be abusive. The children understand that he would not hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. When court professionals believe these common behaviors disprove domestic violence allegations, they give the judge very little chance of recognizing valid allegations of abuse.

Another common mistake is to look only at physical abuse in considering the mother’s allegations. Domestic violence are tactics abusers use to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. Most domestic violence is neither physical nor criminal. Lawyers should present the pattern of the father’s controlling and coercive behaviors and judges should be looking for this pattern. This would include not only physical abuse, but verbal, emotional and psychological abuse. It would include economic abuse and control, litigation abuse designed to bankrupt or otherwise harm his victim, isolating behaviors, monitoring behaviors, threats as well as evidence that shows the father’s motivation for seeking custody. In cases in which the mother did most of the child care during the relationship, the court should consider why the father is suddenly seeking custody and why is he willing to harm the children he claims to love by removing their primary attachment figure. The father may not know the exact harm demonstrated by the research but should have a general sense that children are harmed when denied their primary attachment figure.

The Department of Justice study found that court professionals pay far too much attention to the anger or emotion a mother displays in court in comparison to its significance in determining how good a mother she is. Similarly over forty states have had court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found substantial bias against women and particularly against mothers involved in custody disputes. One of the common forms of bias is to blame a mother for the actions of her abuser. This is exactly what a court does when it blames the mother for her emotion or anger caused by the father’s history of abuse and use of abusive litigation tactics instead of blaming him for intimidating and coercive behaviors that caused her reaction. Gender bias is often difficult to recognize because it is not done deliberately or consciously and some court professionals become extremely defensive when this issue is raised. A good remedy is to frequently consider how you would have reacted to the same situation if the genders were reversed.

We often hear judges complain about how difficult it is to decide a he-said she-said case. Usually this is because much of the evidence that would have helped the judge see the pattern was missed because the court professionals did not know what to look for. In one case the father admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she had no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. This father, in effect told the judge his motivation for seeking custody, but the judge failed to use this evidence because he did not understand its significance. Most cases will not have such obvious evidence, but smart professionals can figure out the motivation from the history and context.

Consequences of Extreme Decisions

Abusers understand that the best way to hurt mothers is to hurt their children. This is why so many abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seek custody when the mother seeks to leave her abuser. Court professionals often miss recognizing the fathers’ motivation because they have repeatedly heard that contested custody are high conflict cases when most are actually domestic violence cases. The worst part of this work is hearing about the unspeakable pain suffered by mothers and children when courts send children to live with dangerous abusers and take safe, protective mothers out of their children’s lives. It is extremely frustrating because these mistakes cause so much harm, but could be prevented if the courts would apply current scientific research.

If there was a scientific basis for these decisions, an evaluator could tell the court how his recommendations have worked out for the children in earlier cases. There is no such research and the closest we have are the Courageous Kids. These are young adults who have aged out of custody orders forcing them to live with abusive fathers and denying them a normal relationship with their mothers. These kids have a moral authority that none of the rest of us has because the decisions were supposed to be made for their benefit. The decisions gave control to the fathers who had tremendous power and resources to silence the children. This means the many Courageous Kids who have spoken out, often in great pain in order to help other children from suffering the same fate, represent a small percentage of spectacularly mistaken decisions. They describe tremendous pain and suffering during childhood and many problems that last into their adult lives. In many ways they are the lucky ones because other children in this situation commit suicide, destroy their lives with drugs and other harmful behaviors or otherwise never reach their potential.

As discussed earlier these decisions lead to a higher crime rate in addition to the increase in domestic violence homicide. A large majority of our prison population witnessed domestic violence or suffered direct abuse. The extreme decisions discussed in this article increase this unfortunate population. These mistakes also have a profound negative impact on society. The increased crime requires substantial expenditures in the criminal justice system as well as property losses and injuries. These mistakes also substantially increase health expenses that raise insurance rates and taxes when the government pays health costs. At the same time, by destroying or limiting the potential of these children, and others, it reduces economic output thus reducing tax revenue.

As someone who practiced law for thirty years, I am particularly concerned about the harm these cases do to the reputation of the courts and the legal system. I repeatedly hear statements that the custody court system is corrupt. This is based on so many cases in which the disparity of the evidence and the outcome makes it look like only corruption could have caused such improper decisions. The extreme decisions that cannot possibly benefit the children further support the corruption conclusion.

While there are instances of corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, I believe the research supports a different explanation. It appears the courts adopted flawed practices at a time when no research was available and have continued these outdated and discredited practices despite the current scientific research available. The use of myths, stereotypes, bias and misinformation are widespread in the custody courts. The use of mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence contributes both to mistaken decisions and widespread misinformation. Many judges have been unwilling to take a close look to scrutinize evaluators’ recommendations or to discredit evaluators who are unfamiliar with current scientific research. The problem is exasperated by a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who have figured out that fathers tend to have control of most of the resources in contested custody so the best way to make a lot of money is to support theories and approaches that help abusers. We frequently see courts treat evaluators and GALs who are biased in favor of fathers as if they were “neutrals.” These mistakes create an appearance of corruption that is extremely harmful to the reputation of the legal system.

Judges are supposed to be open to new information, willing to correct mistakes and to change their minds based on new evidence. I was particularly impressed with Judge Thomas Hornsby who wrote a chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY in which he said that in his nineteenth year on the bench he learned the right way to handle certain types of restraining orders. It takes the kind of ethics and courage we expect from judges to admit past mistakes like that. Too often we hear judges refusing to listen to a domestic violence expert based on statements that the judge has been on the bench for many years and doesn’t need this assistance. And then they send the children to live with an abuser. It is important for good judges to set an example and reverse decisions that research establishes are harmful to children.

Conclusion

When you made a decision giving custody to the alleged abuser and limiting the mother to supervised or no visitation, you thought you were doing something to benefit the children. In some cases you thought the father was the parent most likely to promote the relationship between the children and other parent.

In most of these cases once the father gains control he actually interferes with the mother’s relationship in ways that you would severely punish if done by the mother. Repeatedly abusive fathers use their control to undermine the mother’s relationship because that was his purpose in seeking custody in the first place. The subsequent interference in the mother’s relationship, including asking the court to limit her contact is a change of circumstance giving the court new information not available when the decision was made. The research now available that demonstrates the frequency of abusers destroying mothers’ relationships with their children is also a change of circumstance the court was unaware of when it made the decision. Domestic violence is very much about context and one of the common mistakes in custody court is to look at each incident and each issue separately thus preventing court professionals from recognizing the pattern of abuse. Judges sometimes make the mistake of treating a finding denying abuse allegations as settling the issue so that it can never look at the issue again or at least not the prior evidence. Best practices would be to look at the new information, such as the father using his control to harm the children’s relationship with the mother in the context of his history of controlling and coercive behavior so that even if the court failed to recognize his pattern of abuse earlier, the new circumstances, taken together with the prior evidence can be sufficient to confirm the abuse allegations if only the judge can be open to acknowledging the prior conclusion was wrong.

Even if the court continues to believe the mother’s abuse allegations were false and even deliberately so, current scientific research does not support limiting the children to supervised or no visitation with their primary attachment figure. The harm of losing a normal relationship with their mother under these circumstances is far more harmful than the risk she might make some negative statements. This research, by itself constitutes a change of circumstance requiring at least normal visitation for the mother. We have too often seen judges refuse to correct their decision for fear of looking bad by admitting an error. I ask you not to take the risk of a child suffering depression, low self-esteem or God forbid commit suicide. That would be a judicial error we cannot tolerate.

HHS Inspector General to State of KS: "Kansas Advocacy and Protective Services’ (KAPS) has charged Federal grants $491,936

2011-07-20T05:12:00.001-07:00

(hat tip to a ‘friend’ for this)

HHS Inspector General to State of KS: "Kansas Advocacy and Protective Services’ (KAPS) has charged Federal grants $491,936 (APPENDIX B) for payments made to, or on behalf of members of KAPS board of directors for consulting and legal fees and health insurance premiums. Governing Federal cost principles (OMB Circular A-122) do not allow these types of payments to officers or employees of grantee organizations."

http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region7/70302008.pdf

We recommended the amount be refunded to the applicable Federal programs. The law firm that responded to the draft report for KAPS indicated it could not respond to the validity of the facts and reasonableness of the recommendations because of the lack of records. They further indicated that “KAPS will cooperate fully with the Federal agencies involved in order to bring resolution to this matter."

My favorite part of the report is that when prosecuted by the feds for fraud, the nonprofit which receives $$$ to represent [RIG] indigent litigants in cases, and who filled out the grant applications and agreed to the terms, hired a law firm to represent the nonprofit who was entirely ignorant of the laws governing the case. The board of directors should be in jail, which is what would happen to us if we committed fraud and embezzlement against the federal govt. Instead, these people will reorganize under a new name and keep the scam going...I bet if we looked them up this would be the case.

Conduct Unbecoming for an attorney: Rene Netherton, Topeka Kansas- But this is nothing new. She Claims Claudine Dombrowski is DEAD. Does she know something we do not? Is she making yet another terroristic threat .. ? Is Claudine Really Dead? Did Rene Netherton kill her? ATTENTION LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FBI!!! Please investigate. Is Claudine DEAD?

2011-07-18T08:21:00.001-07:00

Which is why this blog exists- to expose the whores of the court. This one is an *oldie* (literally)

Click on the links for full WEBPAGE Screen Shots links- (which will show you and direct link to the source of the web screen pictures) -- of this renegade attorney Rene M. Netherton Attorney at Law Topeka, Kansas who is harassing a known battered mother, one to which she is a part of the conspiracy to commit deprivation of civil rights as formerly posted under the FBI- COLOR OF LAW

She rants and raves a lot - a lot. One would think that she should be removed as an just an embarrassment to the rest of the legal profession- even alone with just her booze in her office desk drawer-

Seems this attorney needs her anti psychotic drugs increased.

“Really Rene- is this what they teach in Law School?” - you are a disgrace to all Lawyers and you add creed to the the ‘lawyer jokes’ .

*Screen shots begin with her *currently* open profile then by most recent date of each blog.

Rene Netherton Blogger Profile

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/12359-718201154704PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/559707-718201155935PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/701984-718201155523PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/0727-718201154557PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/638719-718201160126PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/938459-718201160323PM

Color of Law Abuses

2011-07-18T07:30:00.001-07:00

Color of Law Abuses

Rene Netherton’s threats to Claudine Dombrowski to have Kick Start bar injure or kill, M. Jill Dykes physical assault to Claudine in Courthouse hallway, Chris Dykes (husband of ATTY M. Jill Dykes) Call to Claudine of threats to Claudine, Police Reports and complaints, Judge David Debenham, accepting known falsified and inaccurate ‘evidence’ to deny Claudine her basic civil rights. Extreme BIAS. Including, but not limited to, right to ‘life’ and safety, Right to Due process. David Rodeheffer, Donald Hoffman, Jason Hoffman and others have all CONSPIRED to commit DEPRIVATION of CIVIL RIGHTS under the COLOR OF LAW.

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

When Abusers FORCE their Victims to Marry them Like HAL RICHARDSON forced Claudine Dombrowski.

2011-07-18T06:02:00.001-07:00

(This is a Forward from Claudine Dombrowski.)

The author(s) of this blog felt it relevant to post on the ‘hell’ blogs of Shawnee County, Kansas OUTRAGE Case. A Case that NEVER should have happened, but due to the FOC’s GAL’s MHP’s and other cronyism and collusion of Court Officers for PROFIT only- another battered mother,lost custody to the abuser and RIKKI DOMBROWSKI was forced to grow up in ‘hell’ without her mommy. Its monetary. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

That is CHILD TRAFFICKING by very definition. Look it up Rene Netherton. M. Jill Dykes, David C Rodeheffer, Judge David Debenham, Donal Hoffman, Jason Hoffman, Kara Haney, Safe Visit, Odyssey et el, and of course DADDY DEAEREST--You are all a part of the ‘conspiracy’ of Color of Law- when 3 or more people conspire to deprive one of their civil and human rights.As you did to this mother.

From: Claudine Dombrowski

This happened to me.

My daughter Rikki was 10 months old before we were married. Hal Richardson was on probation for 95 DV conviction 8 mos prior (part of which entailed NO CONTACT w Victim).

When all other coercion did not work--He took my infant daughter from her from daycare, to the Indian reservation.

The Topeka, Kansas local authorities (and FBI) would not go get my daughter, said it was treaties or such. No one, even w restraining order, and probation requirements and conviction in hand-- would get my daughter back to me.

Our captor and Abuser: HAL RICHARDSON said if I ever wanted to see my child again, I would marry him (he was smart enough to do it in another STATE - MO. as he was on probation in KS for crimes against myself).

Eventually after no 'authority' would help me, I did marry him, got my daughter back 3 days later, I left him two days after that and never went back.

That was in October 1995.

In 2005,while in hiding in MO. for my safety from this ‘batterer’. I found the State and county were we were married, and had it annulled as a 'shot gun' marriage. (although I was by this time divorced and still in custody litigation w abuser in Kansas) it was a self principled matter by this time. In the last few years we brought this up in court that we were ‘never married’ and still this control freak was open mouthed that his ‘ownership’ was annulled.

I am glad they arrested this bully. There is always ‘coercive control’ going on when women 'go back' or 'marry' the perp they have restraining order on.

Man arrested for trying to marry woman with a restraining order against him

Dis Honorable Judge David Debenham Topeka, KS

Monsters In The Closet—and Some Angry Monsters Are Pissed Off- They are as you would expect, woman hating, self entitled typical wife beaters and child abusers--- well done dude’s

FORENSIC FALLACIES IN FAMILY COURT: THE MYTHS AND THE FACTS

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

CINC for minor child Pediatrician Medical Records indicate sexual abuse from father Hal Richardson

Domestic Violence Continued: Contested Child Custody Through Protracted Litigation

Domestic Batterers Do Not Need Help! They NEED PUNISHED!! Jailed and Kept Away from their Victims!

Will this insanity ever end? Topeka decriminalizes domestic violence, Kansas City just followed suit yesterday.

Topeka, KS: Safe Visit Looses United Way Funding, A Child trafficking, Batterer Friendly, Custody Switch Program. Fatherhood Initiatives Give Batterers Custody

It’s about time!!!! YEAH!!!! one less, so many more to go….

U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System

Parental Alienation: What This Phoney Syndrome Does in Custody Battles Why More Fathers Are Able to Yank Children Away from Their Mothers Legally

‘Monsters in the Closet’ Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective

‘Monsters’ Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective Launched by Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline

Video (below) Aimed at Encouraging Public to Support Domestic Violence Prevention Efforts and to Call for Help

About the National Domestic Violence Hotline

About Verizon Foundation

About Verizon

U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

Gender Politics and Child Custody: The Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers’ Relentless Pursuit of their Victims Through the Courts

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap. Why We Should Reconsider Gender Neutral Family Leave Policies

Topeka Maneuvers Over Domestic-Abuse Law Outrage Survivors

Topeka Kansas: Failure to Protect Violates Statutes

Shawnee County DA’s Office and City of Topeka Working to Resolve Misdemeanor Case Filings

The Susan Murphy Milano Show- "Scared To Leave Afraid To Stay" 2:00 PM Eastern Time Live

Go to www.herewomentalk.com

and listen in live!

Thursday, September 22, 2pm ET

Imagine Publicity: “Wounded Warrior” Claudine Dombrowski and Activist Barry Goldstein Join The Susan Murphy Milano Show, Time’s Up

MARKETING.PROMOTIONS.PUBLICITY

“Wounded Warrior” Claudine Dombrowski and Activist Barry Goldstein Join The Susan Murphy Milano Show, Time’s Up

The Susan Murphy Milano Show, “Time’s Up!”

Thursday, September 22, 2pm ET

Listen LIVE at: Here Women Talk

A Hard Hit to DV Victims by The Criminal Justice System in Kansas

A Hard Hit to DV Victims by The Criminal Justice System in Kansas

Related Topics

Topeka, Kansas - Domestic Abuse Survivor Trembling Over DA's Decision to Pass Down Misdemeanors DV is NOT A CRIME in TOPEKA, KANSAS

Topeka Domestic Abuse Survivor Claudine Dombrowski Trembling Over DA's Decision to Pass Down Misdemeanors

DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH! By Barry Goldstein “Times-Up”

Expertise in Safety Issues

Recognizing Domestic Violence

The Mistake of Minimizing Domestic Violence

The Most Common “Mythtake” Custody Courts Make

Ignorance Is Not Neutral: It Favors Abusers

Eleven years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer HAL RICHARDSON

HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS ETC…

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

Rene Netherton’s Threats exposed at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY , 2011

I am the Mother of Rikki Dombrowski.

Kansas Parenting time; visitation orders; enforcement

Article 16. Divorce and Maintenance

back to top60-1616 Parenting time; visitation orders; enforcement

What is Domestic Violence?

Dear Custody Court Judge: EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

HHS Inspector General to State of KS: "Kansas Advocacy and Protective Services’ (KAPS) has charged Federal grants $491,936

Color of Law Abuses

When Abusers FORCE their Victims to Marry them Like HAL RICHARDSON forced Claudine Dombrowski.

back to top 60-1616 Parenting time; visitation orders; enforcement