Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

This post by Dastardly Dads Claudine did not write this and did NOT post it.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2010

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. (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 in 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 embarass 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 B. 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.

Posted by silverside at 9:48 AM

Labels: child custody, custodial dad, custodial father, custody/visitation,domestic violence, DV, Kansas

1 comments:

cricket1234 said...

Oh my goodness! Are you kidding me!!!! Where is the judicial protocol in this case? I do not understand why the Legislators, and other political allies have not been brought into this situation. I would scream from every podium I could buy, rent or borrow, to let every single person in the state of Kansas know what was going on in their court systems!

All judges are elected... It is an election year, get out there and get this judge ousted!

October 20, 2010 6:44 PM

KANSAS CLOWN JASON P. HOFFMAN CORRUPTS JUSTICE AGAIN: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IS SCREWED OVER AS USUAL IN COURT

KANSAS CLOWN JASON P. HOFFMAN CORRUPTS JUSTICE AGAIN: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IS SCREWED OVER AS USUAL IN COURT

 

Nancy Carroll I, Nancy Carroll, wrote this blog post on my blog, with the main portion being repost from silverside. Neither one of us are Claudine Dombrowski, even though pea-brained Jason P. Hoffman believes it to be so.

FILED IN: BAD GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BAD LAWYERS, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR FATHERS, CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, CORRUPT LAWYERS,CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DON HOFFMAN, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HAL RICHARDSON, JASON P. HOFFMAN, JILL DYKES, KANSAS, LEGAL ABUSE, MATERNAL DEPRIVATION, MOTHER CHILD RELATIONSHIP, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, CHILD CUSTODY FOR ABUSERS

Hey, Jason P. Hoffman.  Idiot.  I, Nancy Carroll, was in the court room with Claudine in January.  I had the purple scarf on, gray shirt with purple writing on it.  I sat in the front row, writing notes, such as every time you snorted or every time Jill Dykes rolled her eyes.  So stop lying in court.  I know it’s hard to control yourself, but try.  You are a disgrace to the human race.  You’d do anything to accommodate Waste of Skin Abuser Hal Richardson and corrupt GAL Jill Dykes, who has pictures of Rikki Dombrowski posted on the internet.   Rikki’s own mother is forbidden to, but this low-life excuse of humanity has Rikki up on her Facebook.  Along with her own daughter.  But this is the standard practice for well-paid slimebags who protect and promote abusers in court.

This is from the blogger from Dastardly Dads, who was in the court room in January with me (taking notes also).  I couldn’t make it this time, but she was there again.  Great update sweetie…thanks.

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. (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 embarass 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 B. 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.

Family Court Hell: American Mothers Political Party Show Today @ 5 pm CDT Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2010/10/14/still-standing

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Child Custody PSA - End Court Ordered Child Abuse

 

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 we will never shut up, give up or go away!

This episode airs at 10/14/10 3:00PM PDT - 10/14/10 5:00PM CDT - 10/14/10 6:00PM EDT.

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Judicial Abuse

theanonymums.

Introduction

 

Judicial abuse occurs when the effects of law itself are damaging to the person access to justice. In the most severe forms, Judicial abuse often occurs involving the most vulnerable members of our world: Children.

For some time, judicial abuse has occurred across systems and mostly against mothers and children. Considering that it was not that long ago that both women and children were seen and not heard, just as things were improving it seemed as though humanity was finally valuing each and every prescious human life.

Out in the public, such things would and do cause enough outrage for a sense of "natural justice". Away from the public eye, these human rights atrocities occur almost unseen and unheard like a thief in the night.

Secrecy

 

There are laws that prevent survivors from speaking out about their experiences. Whilst it is "for the children", children are not allowed to speak about the proceedings either. The media have written too few articles on the family court. To bring the case to the media, participants must seek permission from the court itself or face imprisonment.

Controversially, fathers rights groups were allowed to heavily voice their stories of "no contact", "falsely accused of child abuse and domestic violence" and few were allowed to challenge that except in utilizing generalist terms and evidence based research. We are aware that most of these stories are not the case at all but are withheld by law to bring the public the truth.

Family Court

 

In the process of seeking more time with children and promoting what appears to be the most noble cause, has entrenched the rights of mothers and children in their ability to seek safety from violence.

Heads have been quoted in the media for stating that "family violence is our core business". The propaganda that is spread about the voices of children and their access to justice promotes the profitability in manufacturing child abuse and domestic violence. They can do something about it, but it is not within their best economical advantage to do so.

This will continue until something is done. ShareThis

Disclaimer

KS OZ OutLawZ: Women In The Wind- Ride For Domestic Violence GREAT Success!!

 

The Kansas Chapter OZ OutLawZ of 'Women in The Wind' --Did their 1st Ever Bike Run to raise Money for the Topeka KS Battered Women Task Force.

On October 9, 2010 'Women Empowered" Raised $3,500.00!!

This is more than ANY Private Organization has EVER raised for Domestic Violence in Topeka, KS.

I went to cover the event as a Domestic Violence event—What I saw and what I experienced was a love like no other.

(I even made some new friends along the way :-)..)

http://www.WitWoZOutLawZ.org
Rock on OZ OutLawZ!!

The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals- Over 58,000 Children are Court Ordered to live with Abusers and Pedophiles

 

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

In a Conservative Estimate -- OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser. This is more than twice the amount of childhood cancer.

Posted with permissions from: Montana Public Radio, KUFM, which ran on their news broadcast 10-5-2010.

Interview with Assistant News Director Edward O’Brien and Kathleen Russell of the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org about the cottage industry of Guardian Ad Litems aka GAL’s and the much needed State to State Reforms to pull their Immunity from accountability and prosecution for sending children to live with abusers in Disputed Child Custody Cases.

Remember that therapeutic jurisprudence COSTS money, and prolongs litigation. It costs nothing to abrogate their immunity and/or to get rid of them. See, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Listen Now:  The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals - Legislative Reforms Needed

Powered by Podbean.com

 

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

 

Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President

tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg

According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.

Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.

How We Obtained This Estimate:

No one knows the exact number of children who are left in the unprotected care of an abusive parent following their parents' divorce. The Leadership Council has studied the problem and using the best available research has attempted to come up with a conservative estimate of the problem. We estimate that each year, 58,500 minor children are placed at risk for injury because the courts ordered them into the unsupervised care of a violent parent.

The estimate is meant to be conservative and was obtained using the figures in the following table. The research that we used to obtain these figures is explained in more depth in the following section.

Number of children affected by divorce each year	1,000,000
Number of families with allegations of child abuse and/or severe domestic violence (13%)	x.13
	=130,000 cases
When investigated, percentage of cases found to be valid or suspected to be valid. (Research suggests that the number is between 43 and 73%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 70%. To be conservative we will use 60%)	X .60
	=78,000
Percentage of children left unprotected. (Research suggests that the number is between 56-90%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 90%. A conservative estimate is 75%)	X .75
Estimate of children in the U.S. who are left in the unprotected care of an abuser after their parents' divorce	=58,500

The research:

Estimates suggest that between 1 and 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year -- ultimately 40% of all children are affected by divorce.1,2,3

It is difficult to determine the number of divorcing families affected by violence. The Women's Law Center of Maryland analyzed an extensive dataset, which consists of a random sampling of all divorce and custody cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0%).4

This is likely an underestimate as court records often fail to note domestic violence5 and other studies have shown higher rates. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, found documentedevidence of domestic violence in 24%-55% of custody court records depending on the state.6

In addition, studies suggest that in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, there is often a history of violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation. In many cases, the violence involves severe battering and/or the use of weapons.7

To be conservative we will go with 13%. So how many of these allegations are likely to be valid. Research suggests when allegations of child abuse are investigated, approximately 50-73% are found to be valid.8

However, when courts get involved in determining custody, children are rarely protected from the violent parent. In at least 75% of cases the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser. (Research has found results ranging from 56-90%; a conservative estimate is 75%).9

So how many children whose parents divorce are left in the unprotected care of an abuser each year in the United States ? Thus a conservative estimate based on available research is that approximately 58,500 are left at risk of physical and psychological injury after being ordered into the unsupervised care of an abuser after their parents divorce. This number includes both those who are left in the sole care of an abuser and those who are required to have unsupervised visits.

Compare this to the number of cases of childhood cancer per year. In 2004 the incidence rate of newly diagnosed childhood cancers in the U.S. was 22,586.10

Most people who divorce do so early in their marriage,.3 and children who are court-ordered into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, an abuser will be at risk of abuse until they reach adulthood. Consequently, at any point in time it is likely that a half a million children are left unprotected from a violent parent after their parents' divorce.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Divorce - Helping Children Adjust.http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C⊂_cat=0
(“Every year, more than one million children in the United States experience the divorce of their parents.”)

2. National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002, October 15). Preventive Sessions After Divorce Protect Children into Teens.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2002/preventive-sessions-after-divorce-protect-children-into-teens.shtml
(“About 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year—ultimately 40 percent of all children.”)

3. Shiono, P. H., & Quinn, L. S. (1994, Spring). Epidemiology of Divorce.Future of Children, 4 (1). Available athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART2.pdf
(Each year since the mid-1970s, more than 1 million children have experienced a family divorce.”)

4. The Women's Law Center of Maryland. (2004). Custody and financial distribution in Maryland: An empirical study of custody and divorce cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Towson, MD.
http://www.wlcmd.org/pdf/CustodyFinancialDistributionInMD.pdf
(“Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0 percent). Of these, 169 allegations were made by women and 36 by men.”)

5. Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11 (8), 991-1021.
(Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle , studied divorce cases and found that in 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history of domestic violence, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files. Similarly the National Center for State Courts that a screening process [utilized by the mediation program] revealed a much higher incidence of domestic violence than a review of court records alone would have indicated [see ref 6 below]).

6. Susan Keilitz et al, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers , prepared for the National Center for State Courts; State Justice Institute," NCSC Publication Number R- 202, p. 5.

7. Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-Conflict Divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182, p. 167.

8. Research used in substantiation estimate:

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1997). Problems and solutions in the management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes in the family court. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(4), 431-443.
(Researchers reviewed court records of some 200 families where child abuse allegations had been made in custody and access disputes in jurisdictions in two states, observed court proceedings and interviewed court and related services' staff.The allegations of abuse were usually valid. 70% were determined to involve severe physical and/or sexual abuse. The overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations in noncustody related investigations.)

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4 (4), 1-25.
(Researchers examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely; 20% unlikely; and 7.4% uncertain. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.)

Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151-63.
(Researchers examined court records in 9,000 families in custody/visitation disputes. In the 129 cases for which a determination of the validity of the allegation was available, 50% were found to involve abuse , 33% were found to involve no abuse, and 17% resulted in an indeterminate ruling. [*note: Court records provide less reliable than evaluations by multidisciplinary teams trained in recognizing child abuse].)

Jones, D.P.H., & Seig, A. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E.B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, pp. 22-36.
(This article reports on 20 cases evaluated by the C. Henry Kempe Centre which involved both sexual abuse allegations and a parental custody dispute. 70% of cases were found to be reliable and 20% of the cases appeared fictitious.)

McGraw, J.M., & Smith, H.A. (1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49-61.
(This study describes 18 cases of child sexual abuse allegations made during divorce and custody disputes. The cases were reviewed using the clinical process of validation used at the Kempe Center in Denver, Colorado. The number of cases categorized as founded was eight [44.4%].  In two cases [ 11%]) there was insufficient information to make a determination, and five were judged to be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion. Three cases were judged to be fictitious [16.5%], only one of which came from a child.)

Paradise, J. E., Rostain, A. L., & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.
(Researchers systematically evaluated child sexual abuse cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author's practice were systematically reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute [39% of the sample] were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children [5.4 vs 7.8 years]. Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict [nonsignificant] but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.)

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)
Using data from the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98), this paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation. The national study examined abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.
When there was an on-going custody dispute the substantiation rate by CPS was 40% and an addition 14% were suspected but there wasn't enough evidence to make a final determination. 12% were believed to be intentionally false. Allegations of neglect was the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment. Substantiation rates varied significantly by source of report, with reports from the police (60%), custodial parents (47%), and children (54%) being generally most likely to be substantiated, while noncustodial parents (usually fathers) have a lower substantiation rate (33%), and anonymous reports being least likely to be substantiated (16%). Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the study, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.

Hlady, L.J., & Gunter, E.J. (1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591-3.
(Researchers reviewed the charts of all children involved in custody access disputes seen by Child Protective Services (CPS) at British Columbia's Children's Hospital in 1988. Of the 370 such children evaluated by CPS, 34 involved allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) that arose during custody/access disputes. These children's physical examinations were then compared with the 219 children seen during the same one-year period for alleged CSA not involving custody/access disputes. A similar percentage of positive physical findings were found in both groups. It is concluded that the concern that allegations of CSA that arise during custody/access disputes are likely to be false is not borne out by these findings.)

9. Research used in this estimate:

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)
(Examined judicial responses to protective parents' complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser.Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.)

Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.
(This study examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases the alleged perpetrator was granted unsupervised visitation. 
Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody. In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother's boyfriend, or one of mother's relatives).

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11(8), 991-1021.
(Examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence on child custody and visitation outcomes. Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.)

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation's failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23. Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf
(Researchers compared 200 child custody mediations involving charges of domestic violence with 200 mediations that did not.Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue.)

See also:
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.

10. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2007). United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs .

For more information see:

Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9 (3), 33-47. (PDF)

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. (2006). 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them. Washington, DC: Author.http://leadershipcouncil.org/docs/ABA_custody_myths.pdf

More research is available from the Leadership Council web site 
www.leadershipcouncil.org

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: www.leadershipcouncil.org

Mothers March in Washington DC

 

Dear Friends,

1. The Mothers March in Washington was fabulous!  We assembled in front of the U.S. Department of Justice with our signs, banners, new Safe Child Coalition flag and white Mothers of Lost Children T shirts.  Karen Anderson, Executive Director of CA Protective Parents Association, gave the Attorney General's public relations officer a packet explaining the family court situation and documentation of the destruction of evidence during an audit by Marin County family court. We then marched to the U. S. Senate buildings where we fanned out in teams to attend appointments with U. S. Senate aides. We all had the same request: Congressional hearings. The aides were appalled at what we told them. We ended the day with a wonderful photo at the Sewall Belmont house,  headquarters of the suffragists  a century ago. 

The next day we stood vigil in front of the White House for an hour before joining the huge One Nation demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial. Thanks  to everyone who came, and everyone who supported us in so  many ways.  We believe our two events this year will have historic significance.  Pictures and press clips will be posted soon.

What can you do to help now? Follow up is crucial. Please write a letter to your two U.S. Senators with the same request:  we need Congressional hearings.  They need to hear directly from their constituents.  Locate your Senators at www.senate.gov. Faxed personal letters are more significant than emails. If you decide to remain anonymous, tell the Senator you fear judicial retaliation and must use a pseudonym.   

       The Honorable ________
       Re: Request for Congressional hearings on the failure of family court to protect

            children

       Dear Senator ________:
       I am writing to urge you to schedule Congressional hearings on the failure of     

       family courts to protect children, and the retaliation against mandated reporters

       and parents who report child sexual and physical abuse. The scope of this

       problem is staggering:  nationally, over 1000 children per week are placed with  

       their identified batterers or molesters by family courts.www.leadershipcouncil.org

       Children are being maimed and killed in completely preventable tragedies.  As your

       constituent, I want you to know this is happening in our state. It has happened

       to my children.

2. Press Conference at Marin Courthouse on Tuesday Oct 12.  Center for Judicial Excellence invites you to  a picket and press conference one week from today. More than 1,000 flyers have been distributed in Marin, San Francisco and Alameda counties in the past week by three great moms.

You can register by clicking this link, then clicking the button at the bottom of the page that says "Register." Your name will not show publicly. If you are bringing any friends or family or guests, please be sure to add them to your registration. 
http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=me65kybab&oeidk=a07e311awpu5d1273b5

Let me know if you need a place to stay if you are coming from out of town.

Connie 916-233-8381

Forward email

CA Protective Parents Association | P. O. Box 15284 | Sacramento | CA | 95851