We are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more!!
http://AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org/
AMPP—Back from the 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 2011.This is the year of the child.
Until Mothers and children’s voices are heard—We will NEVER shut up- We will never Give up—And we will NEVER Go AWAY
Court Whores – Your Days are Numbered!
Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!
“Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.”
“This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.”
“Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.”
Hope Love Power and enlightenment
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush,
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there; I do not sleep.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there; I did not die.
by, Mary Elizabeth Frye
Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas
Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:
http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html
I can't even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.
Let's do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn't even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.
Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.
As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother's day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.
And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don't like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.
So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON's personal discretion--which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"--but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (67 Direct Contempt's Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered--though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details....) But of course, Dad didn't exactly encourage or welcome contact either--that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.
But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren't even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn't "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court's rules regarding discussion of this case.
All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn't even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy's elbow the whole time.
Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent's attempt to discuss court matters--ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn't be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents' legal issues, which I'm sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.
I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn't play any part of this.
Under Kansas law, visitation isn't shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.
Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants--except in private to her own mother.
And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately--either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.
So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.
No, once again our major concern was Claudine's political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine's first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)
But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY's blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I'm not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can't shut us up.
And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarrass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine's "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman--no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes--earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody's facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won't give her name, though it's in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.
So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine's facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine's facebook page, too--through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook--even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you'll find articles and links about those cases as well.
And all this policing of Claudine's personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON P. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can't even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.
And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn't like is that--as they put it--this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don't like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don't even like Claudine's facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine--apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn't see.)
So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!
Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court's decision is--after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can't really speak her mind--not as long as she's a minor and dependent on her father.
We are not optimistic as to the outcome.
But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system's control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about.
Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.
But at least it's something to hope for.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1CN6yB4FW
Claudine Dombrowski and the love for her Daughter Rikki Dombrowski – Fly High Fly Free--- they can not chain the wind, no matter how hard they try.
Courtesy RightsForMothers
Ha! Both of these courts are busted! It didn’t work trying to shed documents as fast as they could and stall allowing the auditors into their files! Thank you to all the California activists that worked hard to get this audit started and completed.
To download the report “Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts” by the California State Auditor, please click here. Here is the synopsis of the report:
Date: January 20, 2011
Report: 2009-109The California State Auditor released the following report today:
Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts
Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules
BACKGROUND Every superior court in each of California’s 58 counties has jurisdiction over family law matters typically within their family courts. Judges assigned to the family courts decide various family law matters, such as the dissolution of marriages, and where child custody or a determination of the legal relationship between natural or adoptive parents and a child is at issue, the family court may issue an order for child custody and visitation. At the Sacramento family court, where more than 92,500 family law cases were filed during the four-year period we reviewed, its staff conducted mediations and certain evaluations that the family court ordered and the court appointed private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel. In contrast, the Marin family court, which opened 2,352 cases that involved child custody and visitation during the same four-year period, had staff who performed only child custody and visitation mediations and it appoints private evaluators and minor’s counsel to contested child custody and visitation cases. The Family Code requires family courts to design all child custody and visitation orders to reflect what is in the best interest of the child.
KEY FINDINGS Our audit of the Sacramento and Marin County Superior Courts’ processes for identifying, assessing, and evaluating court appointees in child custody disputes during the four-year period—from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010—revealed the following:
• The Sacramento County Superior Court could not demonstrate that its staff performing mediations and evaluations and the private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel it appoints are qualified or trained.
•The Marin County Superior Court could not demonstrate that the mediators always met the minimum qualifications or training requirements and that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain training requirements. Further, the family court did not ensure that minor’s counsel were qualified before making appointments.
• Although both family courts have a process for reviewing and resolving complaints about their mediators or evaluators, neither court kept logs of complaints received. In addition, both family courts did not consistently follow processes for dealing with complaints about their mediators.
• Even though courts may pay for minor’s counsel when it determines that the parties cannot pay, both courts need to improve their processes. The Sacramento family court did not always make the legally required determination about the parties’ ability to pay and the Marin Superior Court did not have a policy outlining the costs it reimburses.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS We make numerous recommendations to the Sacramento and Marin County Superior and Family Courts to ensure that the individuals who provide mediation and evaluation services and who act as minor’s counsel in cases before these family courts are qualified and trained. Further, we recommend that both the Sacramento and Marin family courts track all complaints properly and review them promptly and keep a log of complaints they receive. Moreover, both family courts need to improve their policies and rules for receiving, reviewing, and resolving complaints. We also recommend that the Sacramento Superior Court improve billing procedures and for determining and reviewing parties’ ability to pay appointing minor’s counsel costs.
And what was the court’s response to this report? Read here:
Agency Comments
The Sacramento Superior Court stated that it was largely in agreement with the report’s recommendations and has already begun the process of implementing the great majority of them. The court also stated that it is taking other recommendations under consideration, but some of them will likely prove difficult to implement due to a lack of resources.
The Marin Superior Court stated that it believed many of the findings and recommendations were focused primarily on ministerial tasks. Further, the court expressed an opinion that eight of the 13 recommendations are suggested changes to existing practices that are not governed by laws, rules of court, or any other directives. The court stated that, although it intends to implement the recommended changes and has either already implemented a new process or is engaged in developing a new rule or protocol, it questions whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability.
Here’s hoping that anyone with cases in these two courts can use this report to correct horrible actions that have happened to them.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/20/still-standing
Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM CST 6 PM EST
Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party
http://vodpod.com/watch/1533683-evolution-of-propaganda?u=ampp&c=ampp
AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.
We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.
We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.
We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.
We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!
We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.
We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.
Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.
Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.
Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard
I am always so excited when Barbara Kay has an article published. She is so truthful and factual in her support of father's rights. Let's take a look:
We have British Columbia's first review of family law in B.C. since the Family Relations Act came into force more than thirty years ago. Their July "White Paper on Family Relations Act Reform" (accepting submissions until Oct. 8) contains progressive draft legislation and policy proposals: It recommends stepping away from courts and the adversarial model in order to "adopt a conflict prevention approach to family law disputes" and urges making "children's best interests the only consideration in parenting disputes."Damn this is really groundbreaking. I am totally impressed that it took 30 years to come forward with this information. I mean, who knew that children's best interests should be so exclusively focused on?
Next up is the Green Party's unequivocal adoption of a policy of equal parenting at their August convention. By my reckoning that means every single federal party is on board with the idea that both parents have the right to maintain a strong, loving bond with their children, established through credible sociological research as necessitating 40% of the time with children beyond infancy.
Proceedings against Kelly are suspended while he is evaluated.
When Redding police entered Geoffrey Kelly’s California Street apartment this month after he’d allegedly beaten his 8-year-old son nearly to death with an aluminum baseball bat, they were stunned at the filth they found.
Officers described encountering a rancid stench, moldy walls, piles of cigarette butts, rotting food and heaps of trash as they tracked the blood trail back to the bedroom where Kelly allegedly attacked the boy.
But it wasn’t the first time police had been alerted to deplorable living conditions at homes in which Kelly may have been living.
In fact, at least twice in recent years, police had been called to investigate filthy dwellings associated with the man.
Police reports and court records show that officers’ encounters with the 53-year-old Redding man also had taken an increasingly violent turn by the time Kelly allegedly attacked his son.
Yet it’s unclear whether agents with the local Child Protective Services office were ever called to investigate.
Officials at the Shasta County Children and Family Services office refuse to discuss their cases, saying they want to protect the privacy of the children. Citing similar reasons, officials at Redding School District, where the boy would have gone to class, also declined to say whether they ever suspected abuse.
But one of Kelly’s former neighbors says she urged officers to do something to help the boy, but they refused.
Barbara Mann, 78, said she used to live next door to Kelly at an apartment complex on Continental Street.
She said she called the police to report deplorable conditions at the home as well as the boy screaming inside.
“And I mean screaming at the top of his voice,” Mann said. “He’d just cry and cry and cry. And the apartment was so filthy. I’m telling you, you couldn’t stand it.”
Filthy conditions described
Officer Steve Morehouse described similar conditions in his report following the Jan. 5 beating inside the 2151 ½ California St. apartment Kelly shared with the boy and the boy’s mother, Heather Sieglock.
The boy’s condition improved to serious, a nursing supervisor at U.C. Davis Medical Center in Sacramento said Saturday. He had previously been in critical condition.
Kelly is being held at the Shasta County jail in lieu of $1 million bail on charges of attempted murder and child abuse.
After the alleged beating, Morehouse wrote that he followed a trail of the boy’s blood from the front door through a path of garbage, dirty clothes and food-crusted dishes to the bedroom where Kelly had first beaten the boy.
Morehouse wrote that the kitchen sink was overflowing with rancid water, rotten food and dirty dishes. Mold covered the walls.
The stench was intolerable.
The boy had been spending his nights in a sleeping bag on the floor beside his father and mother’s bed, Morehouse wrote.
The purple sleeping bag, which was covered in spatters of the boy’s blood, was resting on dirt and cigarette butts.
“The apartment, in my opinion, was unfit for anyone to live in,” Morehouse wrote.
But it wasn’t the first time that officers had made similar remarks about a residence with which Kelly was associated.
In February 2006, officers were called to an apartment on Placer Street for a report of a fight.
They found Kelly outside the home in the front yard. He was arrested on suspicion of public intoxication and violating his parole.
Kelly was on parole at the time for drug- and theft-related convictions.
Officer Levi Solada wrote that the conditions inside the home were deplorable. He described dirty dishes, rotting food, piles of trash and discarded cat-food cans. Bongs and pipes adorned the dwelling, Solada wrote.
A 22-month-old boy, who wasn’t related to Kelly, lived at the home with his grandmother. Solada called CPS to take the boy into custody and he arrested the woman for child neglect.
After the incident, Kelly was sentenced to a year on probation. The report makes no mention of whether Kelly’s son lived at the home.
Another case
In September, an anonymous 911 caller urged police to investigate Kelly’s Continental Street home after the caller saw an elderly woman in a wheelchair staying there, according to Redding police dispatch logs.
“Several people stay at the home and do (drugs),” the caller told dispatchers.
“There are insects crawling all over the house.”
The Continental Street home had so many police calls for drugs and disturbances over the years that Kelly stayed there, officers were issued a warning to be extra careful when approaching the place.
But officers never had enough evidence to suggest the boy was in life-threatening danger, said Redding police Capt. Scott Mayberry.
“There had been some cleanliness issues we went to look at,” he said.
“But there wasn’t an overwhelming amount of calls.”
Kelly’s criminal history in Shasta County was relatively minor up until last year, although police say he was charged with willful injury to a child in Santa Clara County in the late 1980s and had several assault charges there.
Efforts to retrieve those court files this week were unsuccessful.
Between 2000 and 2006, in Shasta County he’d been twice charged with grand theft after he was caught stealing a camcorder from a Redding store and a couple cartons of cigarettes from another.
He’d also been charged with failing to register as someone who had been convicted of drug abuse in another county.
At one point, he’d been ordered by a Shasta County judge to attend a drug-treatment program.
His court files make numerous references to Kelly’s troubles with mental illness.
The full story
But, according to court records, after the 2006 drunk in public conviction, Kelly stayed out of trouble.
That changed on an afternoon in February of last year.
Officers say Sieglock called 911 saying he was extremely distraught and was threatening suicide.
Officers say they caught up with Kelly after he had hammered a knife into his chest near the Continental Street apartment.
Though Kelly dropped the knife, he approached officers with the raised hammer, prompting police to use a stun gun, which failed to subdue him.
Police eventually talked Kelly into dropping the hammer. He was detained and taken to a Redding hospital.
The case was still pending in court when Kelly allegedly snapped again and struck his son.
“I just lost it,” he allegedly told police.
John Scholl, a 71-year-old former child abuse investigator who retired to Redding from Santa Clara County in the late ’90s, said he hopes police and Child Protective Services agents review the case.
Scholl said that if they found they could have moved to protect the boy earlier, he hopes they’d change their polices to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
“I would like to know the full story to protect the next child,” he said.
A special note from Claudine Dombrowski American Mothers Political Party Australian Mothers Political Party
“I have a dream as well--- That mothers and children can be free from Torture -- that No More women and children are killed--That intimate violence be treated as it is, homeland terrorism -- “
“That the federally funded genocide called Fatherhood Initiatives -- be ended, and mothers, the natural guardian, be allowed to raise her own children.”
“I love you my daughter Rikki Dombrowski one of many forced to live in a cage, in silence, in pain without her mother-- without freedom, without voice. Run like the wind Baby---Fly High, Fly Free.”
That the four horsemen begin a reign of “Justice”—on the corrupt human/child traffickers in Topeka, 3rd Judicial District, Shawnee County, Kansas Courts, Judge David Debenham, M. Jill Dykes GAL, ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON, Donald Hoffman, Jason P. Hoffman, David C. Rodeheffer, Safe Visit, Odyssey, Kira Haney, Rene Netherton.
www.AngelFury.org | www.KS-FCRC.com | www.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com | www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZLvSnr6s50
By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic ... of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson." Hal ...
www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html
http://www.scribd.com/AnotherAnonymom
·· Documents:4
1. 2004 June 4th Court Service Officer Report (again all info from DAD dads friends and dads word- poor
2. 2006 March Hoffmans 'Friend' Submits Report for dad and girlfriend (never meeting mom)
3. 2004 March 31 Loyd Swartz to Judge Emails
4. 2004 May14 Letter to From Girl Scouts on 'Request' by Dad.
· Documents:10
1. 2006 Aug Letter to Judge Johnson
2. 2006 email legal mhp court ag email
3. Hearing Finally Set0 From the Sept 27th, 2006 30 Days Couirt Order
4. Mary Bickford School Sec. Attachments to Letter Request Hearing Dec 2004
CINC to keep child from Abuser
· Documents:2
1. 1999 march 23rd CINC (details child sexual, abuse and neglect) pediatrician medical records indicat
2. 5-21-1999 CINC Barton County to Keep Minor Child Safe From Abusive Father Dom Brow Ski
Safe Visit-- Odyssey SUPERVISED VISITATION Reports, memos et el
http://www.projectappleseed.org/safevisit.html Children's Rights Council Supervised Network aka Fathers Rights Initatives
· Documents:13
1. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
4. 2005 August 22 - Judge Wilson Report Safe Visit
5. safevisitrequestjune7,200 5
Letters to Judges CSO, CMs, GAL's
· Documents:29
2. 1999 Letter From King to Hoffman
3. 2006 Aug Letter to Judge Johnson
4. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
5. Dec 6, 2004 Plea for Hearing
· Documents:5
1. 2009 april -6th shawnee county courts mom guilty contempt and further ordered to remove public recor
2. Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Where's a Pair of Ruby Slippers when you need them
4. 12-4-1997 KC Star Tony Rizzo-KS Justice Commission -Dombrowski
5. Fall 2001 KS Now -Custody Case From Hell- Claudine Dom Brow Ski
Correspondence, AG, Reps, Congress, Federal
2. 1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR-836 Hal Richardson- Do
3. 1-20-1998 KS AG Letters and Appointment to Comittee-Claudine Dom Brow Ski
· Documents:18
1. 1999 dad order to pay cs-- but never did
2. 1999 Order Child Support-Richardson
3. 2000 Aug 28 Motion For New Trial Denied --R.King
4. 2000 Dec 29 EXPARTE' Order Suspend Parenting Time with Mom
5. 2000 July 31-- Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON
CSO, Court Memos Emails, letters not on the court record
· Documents:25
2. 1999 Letter From King to Hoffman
3. Dec 6, 2004 Plea for Hearing
4. 7-24-2001 Judge 8-30-2001 CM- Memos
5. 2001 Sept. 5 Judge Marla Luckert to Judge Anderson--'Interception of Emails to Judge From Website
· Documents:38
2. 1999 May Motion - Hoffman Files Advance Hearingto Case Manager
3. 1999 Motion by Richardson for Change of Custody From Mom Dombrowski
4. 1999 October 05 Objection Case Manager R. King
5. 2000 April 17--- Motion to Change Custody to Richardson from Dombrowski (mom)
District Attorney Affidavits- Correspondebce
· Documents:9
2. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
3. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
4. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_1
5. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2
Criminal Record HAL RICHARDSON
· Documents:5
2. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
3. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_1
4. 1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2
5. 95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction
Battered Womens Task Force Records
· Documents:2
1. 1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1
2. 1995 - 1996 Battered Womens Task Force-Records of Claudine Dombrowski case no
· Documents:4
1. 9-9-2001 Leonard Robinson Atty Letter to Dom Brow Ski and the DA en Re RAPE
2. Rape 2001 Medical Records_1
3. 1996 Dr. Joel Nance Psych Eval. Judicial Notice Taken by Courts Claudine Dom Brow Ski
4. 1994-1996 Medical records of Abuse claudine dombrowski
KS Appellate -- KS Supreme Court Briefs
· Documents:12
1. 2000 Aug 7 Court of Appeals Response to 1999 Appellate Brief
2. 2000 Aug 8 Appealls Affirms
3. 11-8-1999 supreme court of kansas, appellant petition for review (rebecca king)
4. 12-14-1999 kansas court of appeals brief of appellant dombrowski case 96d217 apeals judge buchele, j
5. 11-20-1997 kansas supreme court petition for review dombrowski v richardson case 96d217
Psych Reports, Guardian ad Litem, Custody Eval, Co-parenting therapy et el
· Documents:34
1. 2007 Oct_1
2. 2003 Sept CM Order Frm Bruns to Llyod Swartz
3. 1997 closed camera inspection of 30 day drug alchohol hal richardson aug_1
4. 1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1
5. 2007 Oct.7 Disiplinary Complaint GAL -M_1
· Documents:13
1. 2007 April 4 Hearing Transcript Richardson Dombrowski
2. 2008 Nov 4- Transcript Hearing Judge Debenham- Denting Child to Attend Granny's Funeral
3. transcriptofproceedings12 -16-08
4. 2008 Dec. 16- Transcript of Hearing 'Parenting Time' Judge Debenam- Dom Brow Ski -Denied--Again
5. 6-8-2000 transcript as an order by judge richard anderson
Throw the Book at Abusers: Using DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY in Your Case
By Barry Goldstein
As this article is about to be published, Joan Zorza, Nancy Erickson and I are getting ready to make a presentation to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference about how protective mothers can use our book to improve their case. We hope to provide suggestions that will lead to better outcomes than we have been seeing in the custody courts.
Integrating Research into your Case
We often do not hear about a case until it turns bad by which point a lot has happened to undermine the protective mother's position. When a mother has a chance to present the best possible case from the start, what would we want her to do?. Perhaps the first obstacle and the first opportunity is to try to convince the court to avoid the standard practices that work poorly for children and instead look to the specialized body of up-to-date research that was unavailable when many of the standard or should I say substandard practices were first developed.
At the start of the case, let the judge know it is a domestic violence case. Point out that there is a lot of recent information and research about domestic violence custody cases and your case occurs at a time when court systems are transitioning from traditional practices that have been shown to work badly for children to improved practices based on the specialized body of scientific research now available. Ask the court to be open to using best practices as established by this research as the children in the case deserve the use of practices shown to work best for children.
At the start of the case, ask the court if everyone can agree that the first priority should be the safety of the children and the second priority to create arrangements that give the children the best chance to reach their potential. It is hard to imagine a better demonstration of the best interest of the child, but routinely courts consider other factors that are far less important to children. Courts have statutes or case law that define factors that must be considered, but none of the laws would prevent courts from making these two factors that most affect children the highest priority. By raising this issue early, protective mothers focus attention on important issues instead of the false and misleading issues abusers often use to confuse the courts.
Courts usually don't give litigants much time to discuss the case during early appearances, but these statements can be made during initial appearances, motions and in bench conferences. The myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation is a common problem and it may be right to address it early in the proceeding. The mom or her attorney can mention the myth, the correct information that such deliberately false allegations occur only one or two percent of the time and the problem courts have had in responding to valid domestic violence allegations because of a widespread belief in this myth. The court should be informed of the recent Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan that found professionals with inadequate training in domestic violence are more likely to believe this myth and make recommendations that are harmful to children. The court can be asked to avoid appointing professionals who believe in this myth and encourage court professionals to review the up-to-date research that proves mothers rarely make false allegations.
One of the major problems in domestic violence cases is the failure of court professionals to recognize domestic violence because they don't know what to look for. Chapter 13 of the book written by Judge Mike Brigner describes false assumptions untrained professionals often make. They believe if a woman goes back to her abuser, fails to pursue her request for a protective order or doesn't have medical or police records to corroborate an allegation of abuse, the charges must be false. In reality these are normal actions of battered women who do this for safety and other good reasons particularly when they are still living with the abuser. Court professionals should avoid discrediting allegations of domestic violence based on information that is not probative.
The other major problem courts have in recognizing domestic violence is they often fail to understand the significance of much of the available evidence that supports the mother's allegations of domestic violence. Court professionals are often looking only at evidence of physical abuse because they don't understand the reasons why abusers commit domestic violence. Domestic violence involve tactics abusive men use to maintain control over their partner and enforce what they believe is their privilege to make the major decisions in the relationship. It is not a crime of passion, but rather abusers use a cost-benefit analysis in determining when and whether to abuse his partner. This is why abusers are able to control their temper if he perceives his partner did something disrespectful when they are in public and instead waits until there are no witnesses before punishing her.
At the start of a case, protective mothers and their attorneys should put together information demonstrating the pattern of her partner's abuse. This would include abusive practices including physical, verbal, emotional, financial and legal tactics. It would also include controlling tactics like isolating her from friends and family, monitoring her behavior, false allegations of cheating, rules she has to follow and attempts to prevent professionals from helping her. The pattern would also include evidence about his motivation. Court professionals are often taught to view contested custody cases as "high conflict" by which they mean each parent is acting out their anger at the former partner to such an extreme as to hurt the children. In reality most contested custody cases are domestic violence cases which cannot be settled because of the father's abuse. Abuser groups encourage fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship to seek custody when she leaves in order to pressure her to return, punish her for leaving and avoid child support. Accordingly evidence of motivation would include his lack of interest in the children, poor parenting skills, use of visitation and the court case to gain access to his victim and attempt to resume their relationship. The alleged abuser's attempts to send the children to stay with a third party when the mother is available to take care of them should be used to demonstrate his goal is to hurt the mother. Sexist behavior is important evidence of motivation because sexism is the cause of domestic violence. This pattern can be used at court conferences, in motions as well as trials and appeals to help the court understand the pattern of abuse. The pattern can also be used in informal discussions with court professionals like GALs or evaluators to help them recognize the father's domestic violence.
Judges and other court professionals are often hostile or at least overly skeptical of abuse allegations. They are often more open to considering information about primary attachment even if they don't understand the full implications. At the same time, protective moms dealing with devastating issues of domestic violence and child abuse and defending against abuser tactics of demonizing the victim often fail to raise the issue of primary attachment.
Primary attachment refers to the person usually the mother who does most of the child care in the first couple of years of the baby's life. This has important consequences for the well being of the child. Primary attachment is sometimes confused with continuity, but subsequent changes in the child care arrangement, including court orders giving custody of the child to the non-primary attachment figure do not change primary attachment. Primary attachment is forever and a child deprived of regular contact with her primary attachment figure is more likely to suffer depression, low-self-esteem, commit suicide when older and other harmful effects. Unless the primary attachment figure is unsafe, how could it possibly be right to place a child at such risk? Safety issues would be a parent who is a drug addict, beats the child or some similar risk and certainly would not be just making negative statements about the other parent.
Although abusers sometimes lie or exaggerate their role in child care, in many cases they don't challenge the fact the mother provided most of the child care when the child was an infant. Other times the parties' work schedules or the father's lack of familiarity with the child's development and daily activities can be used to confirm the mother as the primary attachment figure. Once this is established, it is fair to ask why a father who claims to love the child would want to separate the child from his primary attachment figure. Information about the importance of primary attachment can be provided by the attorney during court appearances and through an expert witness at trial.
For many years, and to some extent today, if a mother complains about the father's domestic violence and sought to limit his contact, the judge would ask some version of did he also assault the children. If the answer was no, the court treated the abuser as if he was just as qualified as the mother for custody and visitation. This mistaken practice was supposed to stop after every state passed laws to take domestic violence more seriously in custody and visitation cases based on research that demonstrated the harm to children of witnessing domestic violence.
Our book contains an important chapter by Claire Crooks, Peter Jaffe and Nicholas Bala about the effects of domestic violence on children and how this information should be used in fashioning custody and visitation arrangements. In discussions during court conferences and through expert testimony at trial, courts should be informed that children who witness domestic violence (see it, hear it, see the mother's injuries, feel her fear) are more likely when they grow up to engage in serious dysfunctional behaviors like substance abuse, self-mutilation, teen pregnancy, school drop-out, prostitution, crime and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. The chapter also discusses the fact that children have developmental goals in each age category and witnessing domestic violence interferes with their ability to reach these goals. When children fail to reach developmental goals this interferes with achieving future development. In young children, being present for domestic violence can affect the hardwiring of their brain with harmful consequences for the rest of the child's life.
The severe consequences of domestic violence to children have led the writers of this chapter and most other reputable experts to recommend custody to the non-abusive or less abusive parent and supervised visitation, at least initially to the abuser. Claire Crooks, Peter Jaffe and Nicholas Bala provide a detailed discussion about best practices for future visitation with the abuser. Importantly, they recommend that the burden should be on the abuser to change his behavior and demonstrate safety instead of what many courts do which is to force the mother and children to accommodate the abuser. They recommend the abusive father complete a batterer program, accept full responsibility for his abuse and not try to minimize or blame others for his abuse. The abuser must promise never to abuse anyone again and acknowledge the harm he has caused his ex-partner and children. The court would then weigh these factors in determining whether to resume unsupervised visitation with the understanding that if he commits any further abuse his visitation will end.
These experts avoid common mistakes often committed by court professionals. The end of the relationship does not also end the danger presented by the abuser. For many women this is the most dangerous time particularly when he realizes that this time she is not coming back. Over 70% of domestic violence homicides by men are committed after she has left. In other words it is not the crime of passion many unqualified professionals assume. Every year abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases kill over one hundred children often with the unwitting assistance of the courts who fail to recognize the danger. Abusive fathers often act out their belief she had no right to leave him by going after custody, not as most court professionals believe, our of love for the children, but to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. This is what most contested custody cases are about which courts mistakenly view as "high conflict" cases.
Significantly, domestic violence is not caused by the actions of the victim, but rather the belief system and sense of privilege of the abuser. The end of the relationship does not change his beliefs so that if he receives custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness his abuse of future partners. This will compound the harm caused by his earlier abuse. Many inadequately trained professionals mistake the lack of physical abuse after separation as an indication he is no longer dangerous. In reality the change reflects limited access to his victim. We often see him continue his attempt to control through abusive litigation strategies and other forms of abuse, and protective mothers and their attorneys need to help the courts see how his abuse continues.
One of the common mistakes caused by viewing domestic violence cases through the "high conflict" lens is that courts seek to pressure victims to interact and cooperate with her abuser. Court professionals have been misled to believe that children would benefit from such cooperation. This works great for abusers who sought custody in order to gain access to his victim but is harmful to battered mothers and their children. If a father is to receive unsupervised visitation in such cases, genuine experts, like the contributors of the chapter, recommend parallel parenting. The court creates a very specific visitation arrangement which should not be changed by the parties. Each parent makes the rules during the time the children are with that parent. This limits the need for any communication to rare emergencies and has been shown to work better for children.
Mental Health Professionals
Mental health professionals were brought into custody courts to provide expertise in domestic violence cases at a time when there was a widespread belief that domestic violence was caused by mental health issues, substance abuse and the behavior of the victim. Although these assumptions proved wrong and most evaluators and other mental health professionals have little or no expertise in domestic violence and are unfamiliar with the scientific research now available, courts have continued to rely on their "expertise." The research cited in our book and elsewhere demonstrates that the involvement of mental health professionals in domestic violence cases causes more harm than benefit. Judge Marjorie Fields wrote in her chapter that she refused to appoint them and was never reversed for making custody decisions without relying on mental health professionals.
Courts often automatically seek to appoint evaluators without fully considering the purpose or benefit. Since they often come to cases with biases against protective mothers, the moms should seek to prevent such appointments or limit their role to areas in which they actually have expertise. I appreciate many judges may be reluctant to try a contested custody case without a "neutral" professional, but it is worth making a record opposing such an appointment and if necessary trying to limit their role to topics for which they have expertise. Alternatively, mothers can ask for the appointment of someone with expertise in domestic violence or at least a willingness to consult with a domestic violence expert. Ask the judge or other professional seeking such an appointment how such an appointment would help the court make its decision. If there is an actual mental health issue such as credible concerns about a parent's mental health, the appointment should limit the role to questions about the mental health condition and how it would affect parenting. None of the tests psychologists use can help determine issues like parenting ability or domestic violence and unless they are the rare evaluator with domestic violence expertise and familiarity with the specialized body of research, they really have nothing to contribute to the fundamental issue before the court. A litigant will have more credibility challenging an evaluator if she does so before there is an unfavorable report.
Robin Yeamans wrote a chapter for the book that is helpful for challenging evaluation reports and particularly conclusions based on reliance on psychological tests. The tests routinely used for custody evaluations were not created for the populations seen in custody court. The evaluators rarely tell the courts that the results are based on probability so the findings may not apply to the particular parties the court must judge. Under the best of circumstances, these tests have a probable accuracy of between 55-65%. Under common situations for which evaluations are sought such as domestic violence or a stressful custody dispute, the percentages are significantly lower. Some of these tests have a demonstrated gender bias so that the same answer is treated an negative for the mother but neutral for the father. The reliance of questionable psychological exams, inability to recognize domestic violence and other questionable practices frequently result in evaluations that pathologize protective mothers.
This information can be used in objecting to the appointment of evaluators and for cross-examination if they are appointed over objection. The book provides a substantial amount of up-to-date scientific research that can be used to question the evaluator and challenge the standard methods which are far from best practices. Evaluators can be asked if they are familiar with the authoritative research that is available. If they are the attorney can demonstrate that the evaluator failed to use the practices recommended by the research and if the evaluator is unfamiliar with this research it should be grounds to disqualify or at least challenge their credibility. Protective mothers will frequently find that the bad practices criticized by the experts who wrote the book are the same approaches used by the evaluators. Joan Zorza, Judge Marjorie Fields and others explain why a family systems approach is inappropriate in domestic violence cases, but most evaluators use this approach because they do not understand domestic violence.
The research in the book can be used not only to challenge the bad information provided to the court, but to provide the court with the accurate information it needs. The mother can use her own expert witness to discuss the scientific research available and how it would apply to the case. If the mother cannot afford an expert witness she may be able to ask a domestic violence advocate to serve as her expert witness. This would emphasize an important point we want to make that domestic violence advocates are the real experts about domestic violence and the only profession working full time on domestic violence issues. Many communities have developed a practice whereby child protective agencies work together with the local domestic violence organization. They train each other's staffs and when the child protective agency has a case that might involve domestic violence, they consult with a domestic violence advocate. These programs have resulted in a better ability to recognize domestic violence and provide solutions that work best for children. Accordingly, the use of domestic violence advocates and experts should be considered best practices. To put it another way, relying on mental health professionals without consultation with domestic violence experts should be considered malpractice.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), sometimes called parental alienation or just alienation in order to avoid a discredited term is a major cause of mistaken decisions in custody courts. Dr. Paul Fink, former president of the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter in the book about PAS. In his chapter he included several quotes from Richard Gardner, who concocted PAS based not on any research but on his own experience and biases. These quotes are to the effect that sex between children and adults can be beneficial. I believe many of the judges who permitted the use of PAS or its progeny are unaware of these quotes and would not wish to be associated with such offensive ideas. Nancy Erickson wrote a chapter the helps protective moms counter PAS allegations.
After the Case Has Gone Bad
I believe that if the court system were using the up-to-date scientific research available to help them handle domestic violence custody cases instead of myths, stereotypes and biases that so often dominate these cases the horrendous outcomes we constantly see would be rare. Until the courts start using best practices, however we will continue to need to respond to decisions that are tragically wrong.
Many judges smugly state that if you don't like their decision the remedy is to appeal. Of course many mothers don't have the resources for appeals and often trial courts place obstacles in the way of appeals. Poor legal work or cowardly attorneys who failed to make a record of the important evidence and issues in the case often prevents any meaningful review of the decision.
If a protective mother is able to appeal, the research in the book can be particularly helpful in framing the issues. The brief can put together all the evidence that constituted the pattern of abuse. This will include tons of evidence for which the trial court failed to understand the significance. The research in the book can be cited in an appellate brief and is particularly appropriate in an amicus brief that seeks to help the appeals court understand the societal harm caused by the discredited practices routinely relied on by trial judges. In most cases the mothers will be able to contrast the assumptions, biases and unscientific approaches used by "neutral" professionals with the accurate research provided in our book and many other sources. If the assumptions are unstated the brief can discuss them based on the context and failure to provide a proper basis for the conclusions.
The worst cases, often referred to as Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases because the outcomes are so extreme and are contrary to the evidence and the well being of children involve decisions giving custody to the abuser and supervised or no visitation to a safe, protective mother who is the primary attachment figure for the child. Cases with these extreme outcomes are virtually always wrongly decided.
One of my favorite parts of the book is a quote in Joan Zorza's chapter 14 page 26. I know the page by heart because I use it so often. "Until judges and other professionals receive the specific training they need to recognize these patterns (and as noted previously, many have such strong preconceived notions that they will not learn anything from even the best training), they must consult with genuine DV experts, particularly DV advocates. Otherwise, as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR COURTS THAT RULE AGAINST ALLEGED VICTIMS OF DV TO BE OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE. COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO TAKE PUNITIVE OR RETALIATORY ACTIONS AGAINST MOTHERS WHO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THEIR PARTNERS ABUSED THEM." This quote also applies to allegations of child sexual abuse for which courts often deny valid allegations and then punish mothers severely for trying to protect their children.
The best time to use this quote would be when the abuser first seeks such restrictions or the judge indicates consideration of these extreme remedies because once the decision is made courts can become defensive trying to justify their mistakes. Nevertheless I would encourage protective moms to use this quote in asking courts to modify extreme restrictions particularly when the court created the restrictions without being aware of the quote or the research in the book.
Decisions on custody and visitation can always be challenged based upon a substantial change of circumstances. When a mother cannot afford to appeal or the time for appeal has expired, this may be her only avenue to change the bad decision. In most cases the decisions were the product of the use of outdated and discredited practices and the lack of information about the up-to-date scientific research now available. I believe the availability of this information is itself a change of circumstance that justifies a reconsideration of the evidence based on the information in the book and other good sources. Mothers should be able to pick out many examples of practices and assumptions misused by court professionals that led to the mistaken decision which the research shows are practices that work poorly for children.
An even stronger argument for a change of circumstance can be made when subsequent events after the decision can be combined with the new research to create an even clearer case of changed circumstances. In many of these cases, whether or not stated directly, courts give abusive fathers custody based on the prediction that they are more likely to foster a relationship between the mother and children. The prediction of domestic violence experts would be just the opposite because they understand the father was seeking custody as a way to control the mother and punish her for leaving. THE BATTERER AS PARENT says that all batterers engage in harmful parenting practices that include undermining the children's relationship with the mother. Accordingly when the father wins custody and proceeds to interfere with the relationship either by seeking court orders or his unilateral actions, this behavior confirms the predictions of domestic violence experts and discredits the predictions that led to the decision. Our book says it is common for abusive fathers to interfere with the mothers' relationships once they get custody. The courts' handling of this common issue is another example of gender bias. If the original decision supported the mother and resulted in interference with the father's relationship, the court would severely punish the mother and yet rarely does anything in response to far more objectionable behavior by the father. The mother can raise this issue by asking the court what it would do if a mother had committed the interference this father is doing.
I am not sure how this strategy of using the research to claim a change of circumstance will work. Certainly it is allowed in other areas of the law as when advances in DNA technology lead to a reconsideration of criminal convictions. I suspect it will work in some cases and not others. It is possible that even if the court rejects the initial petition it may lead to a later relaxation of visitation in which the court provides a different justification for promoting the relationship between mother and children so as not to acknowledge its prior mistakes. As this information is presented in more courts and the professionals become familiar with the research, we hope it will lead to better decisions for all protective mothers and their children.
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
You might also like:
Domestic Violence Safe Courts Act
The Proper Role for Mental Health Professionals in Domestic ...
A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System
Who Does Society Blame for Domestic Violence?
Some Concerns About False Allegations of Abuse Are Accurate
