Hello world!
2 years ago
Showing posts with label Indiana Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indiana Supreme Court. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Twisted: Expert Witnesses and Their Ethics
This article reminds us of some of our less favorite Whores of the Court here in Indiana. Yes Virginia, it is happening all over the country.
Seattle Times staff reporters
June 25, 20011
Earlier this year, a four-page document with a bland title, "Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice," was filed in a civil matter percolating on the King County Courthouse's ninth floor. Hardly anyone took notice. Most everyone had moved on.
But that document — filed by lawyers tangled up in the estate of Stuart Greenberg, a nationally renowned psychologist whose life ended in scandal — signaled the end of a tortuous undertaking.
Greenberg had proved such a toxic force — a poison coursing through the state's court system — that it took more than three years for lawyers and judges to sift through his victims and account for the damage done.
For a quarter century Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress.
At conferences and in classrooms, in Washington and beyond, he taught others to do what he did. He became his profession's gatekeeper, quizzing aspirants, judging others' work, writing the national-certification exam. His peers elected him their national president.
But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies. In the years since Greenberg's death, while court officials wrestled over his estate, The Seattle Times worked to unearth Greenberg's secrets, getting court records unsealed and disciplinary records opened.
Those records are a testament to Greenberg's cunning. They show how he played the courts for a fool. He played state regulators for a fool. He played his fellow psychologists for a fool. And were it not for a hidden camera, he might have gotten away with it.
In summer 1984, Cathy Graden, a 27-year-old surgical nurse from Woodinville, was summoned to King County Superior Court for an emergency hearing in her child-custody case.
Her lawyer said a psychologist's report was behind the hearing. But Graden wasn't allowed to read the report. Nor was she allowed in the courtroom while the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Stuart Greenberg, had been hired to help resolve a custody dispute involving Graden's only child, a 4-year-old boy whose bright, goopy finger-paintings Graden taped up all over the house.
Although appointed by the court, Greenberg was paid by the parties. He had interviewed the boy and both parents, and run a half-dozen tests with impressive names (the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, the Michigan Screening Profile of Parenting ... ).
Graden figured she had nothing to fear. She taught Sunday school; she did volunteer work; she had taken care of her son when the boy's father moved to Alaska after the couple's divorce. "I thought there was no way I could possibly lose this," she says.
Greenberg had arrived in Seattle five years earlier, hired by the University of Washington. A letter written by the department chairman called Greenberg a "last-minute replacement" for a psychology professor who'd resigned. Greenberg's credentials "were on hand," because he'd applied for some other position.
His credentials were acceptable but not extraordinary. He had a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, where his thesis was a word salad: "Stimulus and Response Generalization of Classes of Imitative and Non-imitative Behavior as a Function of Reinforcement, Task, Cues, and Number of Therapists." On Washington's psychology licensing test, one examiner marked Greenberg's professional judgment as "good," his knowledge and skills, "okay."
Teaching, Greenberg earned just $15,300 his first year. His second year, he was assigned only a single evening class. He left the university and moved into private practice. He picked up court appointments in Western Washington as a custody investigator, expert evaluator, arbiter, mediator, guardian ad litem, special master. He became enmeshed in the court system, buddying up to lawyers, judges, fellow experts.
On the stand, he radiated confidence. "He was just kind of a notch above the rest of us," says Nick Wiltz, a fellow forensic psychologist. "He was able to present reports and information in a very powerful way."
But Greenberg also demonstrated dubious judgment and a cavalier attitude toward his ethical obligations, which forbade even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Please go to the original article to read the rest of the story.
Seattle Times special report: Twisted ethics of an expert witness
By Ken Armstrong and Maureen O'HaganSeattle Times staff reporters
June 25, 20011
Earlier this year, a four-page document with a bland title, "Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice," was filed in a civil matter percolating on the King County Courthouse's ninth floor. Hardly anyone took notice. Most everyone had moved on.
But that document — filed by lawyers tangled up in the estate of Stuart Greenberg, a nationally renowned psychologist whose life ended in scandal — signaled the end of a tortuous undertaking.
Greenberg had proved such a toxic force — a poison coursing through the state's court system — that it took more than three years for lawyers and judges to sift through his victims and account for the damage done.
For a quarter century Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress.
At conferences and in classrooms, in Washington and beyond, he taught others to do what he did. He became his profession's gatekeeper, quizzing aspirants, judging others' work, writing the national-certification exam. His peers elected him their national president.
But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies. In the years since Greenberg's death, while court officials wrestled over his estate, The Seattle Times worked to unearth Greenberg's secrets, getting court records unsealed and disciplinary records opened.
Those records are a testament to Greenberg's cunning. They show how he played the courts for a fool. He played state regulators for a fool. He played his fellow psychologists for a fool. And were it not for a hidden camera, he might have gotten away with it.
In summer 1984, Cathy Graden, a 27-year-old surgical nurse from Woodinville, was summoned to King County Superior Court for an emergency hearing in her child-custody case.
Her lawyer said a psychologist's report was behind the hearing. But Graden wasn't allowed to read the report. Nor was she allowed in the courtroom while the psychologist testified.
The psychologist, Stuart Greenberg, had been hired to help resolve a custody dispute involving Graden's only child, a 4-year-old boy whose bright, goopy finger-paintings Graden taped up all over the house.
Although appointed by the court, Greenberg was paid by the parties. He had interviewed the boy and both parents, and run a half-dozen tests with impressive names (the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, the Michigan Screening Profile of Parenting ... ).
Graden figured she had nothing to fear. She taught Sunday school; she did volunteer work; she had taken care of her son when the boy's father moved to Alaska after the couple's divorce. "I thought there was no way I could possibly lose this," she says.
Greenberg had arrived in Seattle five years earlier, hired by the University of Washington. A letter written by the department chairman called Greenberg a "last-minute replacement" for a psychology professor who'd resigned. Greenberg's credentials "were on hand," because he'd applied for some other position.
His credentials were acceptable but not extraordinary. He had a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, where his thesis was a word salad: "Stimulus and Response Generalization of Classes of Imitative and Non-imitative Behavior as a Function of Reinforcement, Task, Cues, and Number of Therapists." On Washington's psychology licensing test, one examiner marked Greenberg's professional judgment as "good," his knowledge and skills, "okay."
Teaching, Greenberg earned just $15,300 his first year. His second year, he was assigned only a single evening class. He left the university and moved into private practice. He picked up court appointments in Western Washington as a custody investigator, expert evaluator, arbiter, mediator, guardian ad litem, special master. He became enmeshed in the court system, buddying up to lawyers, judges, fellow experts.
On the stand, he radiated confidence. "He was just kind of a notch above the rest of us," says Nick Wiltz, a fellow forensic psychologist. "He was able to present reports and information in a very powerful way."
But Greenberg also demonstrated dubious judgment and a cavalier attitude toward his ethical obligations, which forbade even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Please go to the original article to read the rest of the story.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Daily Occurrence: More Blood on the Hands of Family Court Judges
Lauren McConnielAnother case, one of many mothers who lose their children for no reason. This little girl's last days on earth were hell, and thanks to the family courts, other children are still suffering this fate every day. Just look at the news.
Mother "broken" after five year-old daughter's death
The mother of a little girl in Muncie who died of malnutrition, has strong words for Central Indiana: "Do not let this happen to another kid."
Indianapolis — The mother of a little girl who died of malnutrition, has strong words for Central Indiana: "Do not let this happen to another kid."
That was the message from five-year-old Lauren McConniel's mother Amber Huggins. Higgins spoke via phone to Fox59 News Thursday.
Huggins made a desperate plea to the public saying, "To everybody, if you ever see a child that you think is being abused, even if you have your doubts, please contact Child Protective Services."
Huggins lives in Knoxville, Tennessee. She said she lost custody of Lauren to her ex-husband Ryan McConniel who is now being bars along with his wife Brittany. Both are charged with Class A Felony counts of neglect, causing Lauren's death.
According to Huggins, "The only reason that she [Lauren] ended out of my custody is because when I went to my divorce proceeding, I did not have an attorney to represent me. I mean you've got your children and you're a good mother of them and a judge says, 'Alright, we're going to give custody to the dad.' "
A detective with the Muncie Police Department said the custody battle took place in Arkansas. On Amber Huggins' Myspace page, she lists her status as "broken." She said her daughter was in perfect health before Ryan McConniel received custody.
"She was perfect. She had an upper respiratory infection once. Other than that, she was in perfect health from the minute of her birth," said Huggins.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
BMCC VIII: Author Lundy Bancroft Teaches Battered Mothers to Fight Back
Okay corrupt Indiana court whores! We ARE going to get things fixed in Indiana...we are going to FIGHT BACK!
From Suite 101
By Liora Farkovitz
Last Updated Jan 13, 2011, Published Jan 12, 2011
Leading author and therapist Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back at the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York 1/7/11
The 8th Battered Mother’s Custody Conference featured author and activist Lundy Bancroft, who has for more than a decade addressed the issues of battered mothers who lost custody to their abusers in family courts. Well known as the founder of the Battered Mothers Testimony Project in Massachusetts, Bancroft is also the author of three books on the dynamics and subsequent effects of domestic violence. He was the winner of the 2004 Pro Humanitate Award from the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, for his book, “The Batterer as Parent”.
Battered Mothers Fight Myths
The past seven Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences validated and quantified an emergent judicial and human rights crisis in our family courts. Judges are delivering abused children to the very abusers that their protective mothers painstakingly escaped. For the first time in the conference’s history, Bancroft introduced fighting back against this injustice as the theme for this year’s conference meetings and speakers.
The prevailing myth is that once out of an abusive marriage, the mother is now safe from her abuser. But the truth is that 75% of women who are injured or murdered by their abusers suffer the attack within the first thirty days of escaping the relationship[1]. Despite the divorce, many women endure ongoing torment by their former spouse and abuser because they are permanently connected through their common children.
An abuser stalking, threatening, and torturing the mother, and abusing their children in order to hurt her, are very common realities. The courts perceive repeated requests for protection as strategic chicanery and often fail to validate an ongoing threat to the mother.
Paradoxically, many battered mothers are in the unenviable position of being challenged by Child Protective Services to ‘leave their abusive marriage to protect their children’, despite the statistical odds of their own demise, and the unlikelihood that law enforcement will provide or enforce protective orders. Once embroiled in the family court systems, the battered mothers are marginalized and accused of lying to gain unfair advantage over abusive fathers.
No amount of presenting the actual facts and figures seems to gain these protective mothers and their children safe harbor. Judges and other legal participants routinely place children with their abusers. There are both domestic and international human rights implications to this issue with more than 1,000 families a week now facing this crisis; Bancroft’s expertise is needed more than ever[2].
Battered Mothers Fight Courts
The first shock a protective mother must overcome is the reality that the justice system does not exist within the family court system. On television, in our classrooms, and in the news, the myth that our legal system is fair and just is promulgated. Many protective mothers discover that the truth is that the rules which apply in a criminal court or in business related civil cases are not applied in family courts. Rules of evidence and consequences for challenging the status quo are harsh and unpredictable. Judges have unilateral discretion to define what happens, how it happens and whether she is even allowed to tell anyone else about the court’s orders.
Images
A protective mother stripped of her children, is also stripped of her right to parent; her right of free speech; her right of protection; and her right to protest these injustices. Our Bill of Rights is frequently ignored, and the judicial system affords immunity for the legal participants including Judges, Child Custody Evaluators, Child Protective Services, and Law Enforcement Agencies. If they misjudge, and the battered mother or her children die, then no one is accountable. Do you risk contempt of a court order in an attempt to protect your children?
Battered Mothers Fight Child Abuse
Often the abuser begins to deliberately alienate the protective mother from her children, telling the children that she abandoned them, did not want to mother them, lies about his abuse, or fails to parent them effectively. The child begins to doubt their own ability to perceive reality. They may feel a forced sense of loyalty to their abuser. If the children do not follow his lead and mistreat their mother, what are the physical and emotional consequences they suffer at the hands of the abusers?
Bancroft advises protective mothers and their support systems to remember that the purpose of the fight is to keep as close to your children as possible. Keep things calm, remind them that you love them. Rather than debate which parent is “right” in a never ending battle for the right to exist without the abuser’s influence – ask your child, “What do YOU think?” Maintain the child’s ability to read the situation, assess it and come to an independent conclusion. When the abuser misrepresents a mother’s feelings or actions, correct the lie, and encourage the child to rely on their own personal experience with their mother.
Battered Mothers Fight Isolation
Many Americans erroneously believe family court dynamics are identical to other courts’ standard of evidence in the United States. Therefore they come to the conclusion that a mother who loses custody in civil proceedings must have done something to deserve the loss. The stigma of losing one’s child is an isolating experience. The battered mother finds the experience so painful that she abandons any attempt to explain what happened to her.
To overcome the stigma, the battered mother may attend conferences like the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference; join Facebook Causes; and support websites related to healing from and fighting domestic violence; connect with other people with like experiences; and research what is happening in other parts of the country. Books like those published by authors Lundy Bancroft, Mo Therese Hannah, Barry Goldstein, Amy Neuman, Michael Lesher, Wendy Murphy, Karin Huffer and others can provide specific legal, emotional and political strategies to effect change.
Battered Mothers Fight Human Rights Injustices
Political initiatives are reflected in the progress of landmark legal cases in human rights; follow the outcome of cases such as Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, as well as other international cases concerning domestic violence under consideration by the Inter America Human Rights Commission. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department’s refusal to enforce a protective order against Simon Gonzales that resulted in the murder of their three children. Gonzales (now Lanahan) is protesting the violation of her human rights.
As the first U. S. Citizen to receive political asylum from The Netherlands, Holly Collins and her three children fled the United States in 1994 to be free of domestic violence when they could not obtain protection from family courts. Ms. Collins plans to return to live in the U. S., just as her youngest child reaches adulthood. How our country responds to the knowledge that a mother was forced to flee her own country for protection will be an important barometer of progress.
[1] Indiana Law School Protective Order Project, “What is Domestic Violence?” Website. Referenced January 12, 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/pop/domestic_violence/
[2] Silberg, Joyanna, “How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”, The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, Press Release. September, 22, 2008, http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html, referenced January 12, 2011
From Suite 101
By Liora Farkovitz
Last Updated Jan 13, 2011, Published Jan 12, 2011
Leading author and therapist Lundy Bancroft teaches battered mothers to fight back at the 8th Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York 1/7/11
The 8th Battered Mother’s Custody Conference featured author and activist Lundy Bancroft, who has for more than a decade addressed the issues of battered mothers who lost custody to their abusers in family courts. Well known as the founder of the Battered Mothers Testimony Project in Massachusetts, Bancroft is also the author of three books on the dynamics and subsequent effects of domestic violence. He was the winner of the 2004 Pro Humanitate Award from the North American Resource Center for Child Welfare, for his book, “The Batterer as Parent”.
Battered Mothers Fight Myths
The past seven Battered Mother’s Custody Conferences validated and quantified an emergent judicial and human rights crisis in our family courts. Judges are delivering abused children to the very abusers that their protective mothers painstakingly escaped. For the first time in the conference’s history, Bancroft introduced fighting back against this injustice as the theme for this year’s conference meetings and speakers.
The prevailing myth is that once out of an abusive marriage, the mother is now safe from her abuser. But the truth is that 75% of women who are injured or murdered by their abusers suffer the attack within the first thirty days of escaping the relationship[1]. Despite the divorce, many women endure ongoing torment by their former spouse and abuser because they are permanently connected through their common children.
An abuser stalking, threatening, and torturing the mother, and abusing their children in order to hurt her, are very common realities. The courts perceive repeated requests for protection as strategic chicanery and often fail to validate an ongoing threat to the mother.
Paradoxically, many battered mothers are in the unenviable position of being challenged by Child Protective Services to ‘leave their abusive marriage to protect their children’, despite the statistical odds of their own demise, and the unlikelihood that law enforcement will provide or enforce protective orders. Once embroiled in the family court systems, the battered mothers are marginalized and accused of lying to gain unfair advantage over abusive fathers.
No amount of presenting the actual facts and figures seems to gain these protective mothers and their children safe harbor. Judges and other legal participants routinely place children with their abusers. There are both domestic and international human rights implications to this issue with more than 1,000 families a week now facing this crisis; Bancroft’s expertise is needed more than ever[2].
Battered Mothers Fight Courts
The first shock a protective mother must overcome is the reality that the justice system does not exist within the family court system. On television, in our classrooms, and in the news, the myth that our legal system is fair and just is promulgated. Many protective mothers discover that the truth is that the rules which apply in a criminal court or in business related civil cases are not applied in family courts. Rules of evidence and consequences for challenging the status quo are harsh and unpredictable. Judges have unilateral discretion to define what happens, how it happens and whether she is even allowed to tell anyone else about the court’s orders.
Images
A protective mother stripped of her children, is also stripped of her right to parent; her right of free speech; her right of protection; and her right to protest these injustices. Our Bill of Rights is frequently ignored, and the judicial system affords immunity for the legal participants including Judges, Child Custody Evaluators, Child Protective Services, and Law Enforcement Agencies. If they misjudge, and the battered mother or her children die, then no one is accountable. Do you risk contempt of a court order in an attempt to protect your children?
Battered Mothers Fight Child Abuse
Often the abuser begins to deliberately alienate the protective mother from her children, telling the children that she abandoned them, did not want to mother them, lies about his abuse, or fails to parent them effectively. The child begins to doubt their own ability to perceive reality. They may feel a forced sense of loyalty to their abuser. If the children do not follow his lead and mistreat their mother, what are the physical and emotional consequences they suffer at the hands of the abusers?
Bancroft advises protective mothers and their support systems to remember that the purpose of the fight is to keep as close to your children as possible. Keep things calm, remind them that you love them. Rather than debate which parent is “right” in a never ending battle for the right to exist without the abuser’s influence – ask your child, “What do YOU think?” Maintain the child’s ability to read the situation, assess it and come to an independent conclusion. When the abuser misrepresents a mother’s feelings or actions, correct the lie, and encourage the child to rely on their own personal experience with their mother.
Battered Mothers Fight Isolation
Many Americans erroneously believe family court dynamics are identical to other courts’ standard of evidence in the United States. Therefore they come to the conclusion that a mother who loses custody in civil proceedings must have done something to deserve the loss. The stigma of losing one’s child is an isolating experience. The battered mother finds the experience so painful that she abandons any attempt to explain what happened to her.
To overcome the stigma, the battered mother may attend conferences like the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference; join Facebook Causes; and support websites related to healing from and fighting domestic violence; connect with other people with like experiences; and research what is happening in other parts of the country. Books like those published by authors Lundy Bancroft, Mo Therese Hannah, Barry Goldstein, Amy Neuman, Michael Lesher, Wendy Murphy, Karin Huffer and others can provide specific legal, emotional and political strategies to effect change.
Battered Mothers Fight Human Rights Injustices
Political initiatives are reflected in the progress of landmark legal cases in human rights; follow the outcome of cases such as Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. USA, as well as other international cases concerning domestic violence under consideration by the Inter America Human Rights Commission. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department’s refusal to enforce a protective order against Simon Gonzales that resulted in the murder of their three children. Gonzales (now Lanahan) is protesting the violation of her human rights.
As the first U. S. Citizen to receive political asylum from The Netherlands, Holly Collins and her three children fled the United States in 1994 to be free of domestic violence when they could not obtain protection from family courts. Ms. Collins plans to return to live in the U. S., just as her youngest child reaches adulthood. How our country responds to the knowledge that a mother was forced to flee her own country for protection will be an important barometer of progress.
[1] Indiana Law School Protective Order Project, “What is Domestic Violence?” Website. Referenced January 12, 2011. http://www.law.indiana.edu/pop/domestic_violence/
[2] Silberg, Joyanna, “How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”, The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, Press Release. September, 22, 2008, http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html, referenced January 12, 2011
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Just Another Day in Indianapolis: Man Beats Wife While Children Call 911 From Closet
Surprisingly, this was reported in the news. It isn't often these cases get noticed. Wanna bet daddy will get custody of the children, and mommy will get supervised visitation, if any at all? This is Standard Operating Procedure in most Indiana courts now, to give the abuser custody of the children and to limit's mother's contact so she cannot discuss the horrible abuse that the children witnessed. Instead, Indiana children can experience their own horrors of life with the abuser.
Man beats wife, kids call 911 in closet
Updated: Tuesday, 02 Nov 2010, 12:25 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 01 Nov 2010, 6:45 PM EDT
* By: AJ Colley
NEW WHITELAND, Ind. (WISH) - A man was arrested in New Whiteland Sunday night after badly beating his wife in front of the couple’s children, police say.
The two children hid in a closet in a back bedroom while calling 911. The incident happened at about 11 p.m. Sunday.
According to police, Timothy Brown was holding the front door closed on officers. Three officers responded and two used a stun gun on Brown.
When police got inside, Brown’s wife was unconscious on the couch. She was taken to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. Brown was taken to Johnson Memorial Hospital after making suicidal comments, but was later transferred to jail.
Police say Brown has had domestic issues in the past. New Whiteland Police Sgt. Dave Glaze said it’s the worst case of domestic violence he’s seen in his 23 years on the department.
Police escorted the two children out of the house with a blanket over their heads so they couldn’t see their injured mom or their dad in handcuffs.
Man beats wife, kids call 911 in closet
Updated: Tuesday, 02 Nov 2010, 12:25 PM EDT
Published : Monday, 01 Nov 2010, 6:45 PM EDT
* By: AJ Colley
NEW WHITELAND, Ind. (WISH) - A man was arrested in New Whiteland Sunday night after badly beating his wife in front of the couple’s children, police say.
The two children hid in a closet in a back bedroom while calling 911. The incident happened at about 11 p.m. Sunday.
According to police, Timothy Brown was holding the front door closed on officers. Three officers responded and two used a stun gun on Brown.
When police got inside, Brown’s wife was unconscious on the couch. She was taken to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. Brown was taken to Johnson Memorial Hospital after making suicidal comments, but was later transferred to jail.
Police say Brown has had domestic issues in the past. New Whiteland Police Sgt. Dave Glaze said it’s the worst case of domestic violence he’s seen in his 23 years on the department.
Police escorted the two children out of the house with a blanket over their heads so they couldn’t see their injured mom or their dad in handcuffs.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
There's Nothing Friendly About Abuse
From the current issue of Ms. Magazine:
Children are at risk when custody cases rely on a meritless theory of parental "alienation"
by R. Dianne Bartlow
It's a statistic so unbelievable that it's difficult to wrap your head around: A research review by lawyer and domestic violence expert Joan Zorza found that in about half of the 100,000 contested child custody cases each year in the United States, custody goes to the father - even though at least one-third of these fathers reportedly committed domestic violence against the mother or the child. In fact, women are actually more likely to win custody if they do not allege abuse.
The force behind these rulings are the innocuous-sounding "friendly parent" statutes on the books in at least 32 states, which mandate that courts, in deciding custody, consider how willing each parent is to facilitate a "close and continuing" relationship between the child and the other parent. This is one factor in determining what custody arrangements are "in the best interests of the child."
"Friendly parent" statutes are a dressed-down form of a theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS theorizes that most accusations of child abuse (especially sexual abuse) made during a custody battle are actually fraudulent. Not only are the charges false, says the theory, but they are deliberately undertaken by one parent (in most cases, the mother) to "alienate" the child from the other parent (generally, the father).
Never mind that the American Psychological Association has said PAS has no valid merit, nor that PAS inventor Richard Gardner has also said that society "overreacts" to sexual abuse and that pedophilia is an honorable lifestyle choice. PAS lives on in "friendly parent" statutes and in the testimony of many court-appointed evaluators and mental-health professionals. Those who diagnose PAS often recommend that full custody go to the "alienated parent" (usually the biological father) and that unsupervised visitation with the "alienating parent" (usually the mother) be cut off.
Ultimately, these outmoded ideas maintain their grip because of a long-standing tradition of discrediting women's concerns and believability in comparison to men's, wrote Zorza in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody (Civic Research Institute, 2010). Their effect is to lend powerful leverage to abusers.
"Severely abusive fathers may deliberately escalate their abuse to force the woman to complain, flee, or bargain away valuable marital assets, alimony or child support. They then retaliate by filing for custody, knowing they will likely be able to deprive the mothers of the children," writes Zorza. "Other abusive fathers use the "friendly parent" concept to force the mother to pay them child support and to deprive her of any visitation."
The consequences can be dire. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, a court advocacy organization, an estimated 75 children nationwide were murdered between June 2009 and April 2010 by abusive fathers who won custody battles.
Currently, about half of the states in the U.S. have laws requiring courts to consider domestic violence on an equal basis with factors such as "friendly parent" statutes when making custody determinations. But family courts have wide discretion in how heavily to weigh domestic violence. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association recommend that abuse be given more consideration than other factors in custody cases - and that courts withhold sole or joint custody from anyone with a history of domestic violence.
It's high time for parents and the public to know what's going on in these situations, says Barry Goldstein, co-editor of Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: "I believe that if the public was aware of the frequency in which courts make fundamental mistakes and send children to live with abusers, the practice would quickly end because it would not be tolerated."
R.Dianne Bartlow, PH.D., is associate professor of gender and women's studies at California State University, Northridge.
Children are at risk when custody cases rely on a meritless theory of parental "alienation"
by R. Dianne Bartlow
It's a statistic so unbelievable that it's difficult to wrap your head around: A research review by lawyer and domestic violence expert Joan Zorza found that in about half of the 100,000 contested child custody cases each year in the United States, custody goes to the father - even though at least one-third of these fathers reportedly committed domestic violence against the mother or the child. In fact, women are actually more likely to win custody if they do not allege abuse.
The force behind these rulings are the innocuous-sounding "friendly parent" statutes on the books in at least 32 states, which mandate that courts, in deciding custody, consider how willing each parent is to facilitate a "close and continuing" relationship between the child and the other parent. This is one factor in determining what custody arrangements are "in the best interests of the child."
"Friendly parent" statutes are a dressed-down form of a theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS theorizes that most accusations of child abuse (especially sexual abuse) made during a custody battle are actually fraudulent. Not only are the charges false, says the theory, but they are deliberately undertaken by one parent (in most cases, the mother) to "alienate" the child from the other parent (generally, the father).
Never mind that the American Psychological Association has said PAS has no valid merit, nor that PAS inventor Richard Gardner has also said that society "overreacts" to sexual abuse and that pedophilia is an honorable lifestyle choice. PAS lives on in "friendly parent" statutes and in the testimony of many court-appointed evaluators and mental-health professionals. Those who diagnose PAS often recommend that full custody go to the "alienated parent" (usually the biological father) and that unsupervised visitation with the "alienating parent" (usually the mother) be cut off.
Ultimately, these outmoded ideas maintain their grip because of a long-standing tradition of discrediting women's concerns and believability in comparison to men's, wrote Zorza in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody (Civic Research Institute, 2010). Their effect is to lend powerful leverage to abusers.
"Severely abusive fathers may deliberately escalate their abuse to force the woman to complain, flee, or bargain away valuable marital assets, alimony or child support. They then retaliate by filing for custody, knowing they will likely be able to deprive the mothers of the children," writes Zorza. "Other abusive fathers use the "friendly parent" concept to force the mother to pay them child support and to deprive her of any visitation."
The consequences can be dire. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, a court advocacy organization, an estimated 75 children nationwide were murdered between June 2009 and April 2010 by abusive fathers who won custody battles.
Currently, about half of the states in the U.S. have laws requiring courts to consider domestic violence on an equal basis with factors such as "friendly parent" statutes when making custody determinations. But family courts have wide discretion in how heavily to weigh domestic violence. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association recommend that abuse be given more consideration than other factors in custody cases - and that courts withhold sole or joint custody from anyone with a history of domestic violence.
It's high time for parents and the public to know what's going on in these situations, says Barry Goldstein, co-editor of Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: "I believe that if the public was aware of the frequency in which courts make fundamental mistakes and send children to live with abusers, the practice would quickly end because it would not be tolerated."
R.Dianne Bartlow, PH.D., is associate professor of gender and women's studies at California State University, Northridge.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Battered Women Now Safe from Retiring Father-loving Whore of the Court Richard Lawlor?
Let's hope so. He's put children into the hands of alleged abusers. (He well known for loving fathers after all). He does this by twisting anything to fit his own personal bias.
From Lawlor, in "The National Psychologist":
When Lawlor was quoted in a 2005 Indianapolis Star article about the McGuffey murder-suicide, he said what Edward McGuffey did "was so over the top," rejecting that a father could actually do that to a child. Well it happens almost every day in the United States. Lawlor has NO understanding of domestic violence and violent acts upon children. Fathers are abusing their children, yet they are handed custody of them (if they haven't killed them already), thanks to people like Lawlor. (See more about this on Dastardly Dads).
Hyper-focused Lawlor never practiced his own spiel here and never apparently read Indiana State Code. He never understood that domestic violence and fathers that sexually abuse their children SHOULD be taken into account when considering custody. He apparently does not know anything of the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, the National District Attorney's Association, the American Judge's Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judge's (pg. 12) studies, discussions and warnings about this. No, he's just your run-of-the-mill hired gun. He did make plenty of money as a Court Whore, testifying mostly on behalf of fathers.
Adios Muchacho...
Also see: Dr. Richard Lawlor Worshipped at the Altar of Pedophile-lover Dr. Richard Gardner
From Lawlor, in "The National Psychologist":
Similarly, if psychologists become involved in child custody areas, they need to understand the law relating to child custody. The dangers of psychologists getting inadvertently involved in this type of situation have recently been discussed. (See Younggren, The National Psychologist, September/October 2009; and Williams, The National Psychologist, November/December, 2009).
This article is not oriented toward an in-depth discussion of any of these issues. However, it does seem that we as a profession need to systematically train practitioners in this area where, in a variety of ways, the law significantly impacts our practices. Current training is hit or miss.
Psychologists who become sub-specialized in the area of forensic psychology typically have a subset of psychology where they have developed expertise, for example, custody evaluations. In order to do those competently, the psychologist needs to understand the research that underlies that particular area of practice. Similarly, psychologists need to understand the legal statutes, case law and administrative laws of their jurisdictions that impact all of the areas in which they practice.
When Lawlor was quoted in a 2005 Indianapolis Star article about the McGuffey murder-suicide, he said what Edward McGuffey did "was so over the top," rejecting that a father could actually do that to a child. Well it happens almost every day in the United States. Lawlor has NO understanding of domestic violence and violent acts upon children. Fathers are abusing their children, yet they are handed custody of them (if they haven't killed them already), thanks to people like Lawlor. (See more about this on Dastardly Dads).
Hyper-focused Lawlor never practiced his own spiel here and never apparently read Indiana State Code. He never understood that domestic violence and fathers that sexually abuse their children SHOULD be taken into account when considering custody. He apparently does not know anything of the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, the National District Attorney's Association, the American Judge's Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judge's (pg. 12) studies, discussions and warnings about this. No, he's just your run-of-the-mill hired gun. He did make plenty of money as a Court Whore, testifying mostly on behalf of fathers.
Richard Lawlor, Ph.D., J.D., retired after 35 years as a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine. He was the director of the psychology internship program for 10 years and chief of the outpatient forensic child psychiatry service for 10 years.
Adios Muchacho...
Also see: Dr. Richard Lawlor Worshipped at the Altar of Pedophile-lover Dr. Richard Gardner
Friday, May 7, 2010
Battered Mothers to Hold Vigil at the White House on Mother's Day
No thanks to the civil (?) court judges that give child custody to abusers, and cut mothers out of the children's lives....don't you think the children know what is going on already? Don't you know they often witness when a parent beats the crap out of the other parent, over and over again?
By Mary Darcy
WeNews correspondent
Friday, May 7, 2010
Battered mothers often shy away from publicity. But this year, in a sign of their growing organization, some plan to spend Mother's Day in Washington in a White House vigil to draw attention to a court system that often gives custody to abusers.
(WOMENSENEWS)--On Mother's Day, busloads of battered moms and advocates for abused children will roll into Washington, D.C.
They'll hold a vigil outside the White House in an effort to persuade President Obama to take up their cause of reforming a family court system that they say all too often puts children into the hands of abusive parents.
For some it marks a new and somewhat frightening degree of public exposure. Some of the protesters will be shrouded in scarves, hiding from their abusers or a court system they fear will punish them for speaking out.
"They're whistleblowers," said vigil organizer Connie Valentine, policy director for The California Protective Custody Association, based in Sacramento. "The system doesn't look kindly on whistleblowers. It's a difficult situation because we have seen enormous judicial retaliation against mothers who step up in front of the problem."
Efforts to quantify the problem are just beginning but protective parents claim it is widespread. A study done by the Williamsburg, Va.-based American Judges Foundation in the early 1990s showed that in 70 percent of challenged cases, battering parents involved in custody battles persuaded authorities the victimized parent was unfit for sole custody, according to a spokesperson from the foundation.
Valentine and other advocates for protective parents call the family courts broken and corrupt and say the system not only puts children into the hands of abusive parents, it also bankrupts and punishes the protective parents who fight for them. At the same time, they say it's hard to reform the system because the people it hurts are hiding from abusers and anxious to avoid publicity.
Shifting Ground
But Valentine feels the ground shifting. "I think we're in the early stages of a civil rights movement for protecting children from physical and sexual abuse."
She said the Internet is helping battered mothers come together. "E-mail has helped. It's a good part of the reason for all of the advocacy," Valentine said. "Women are beginning to see that it's not their fault and that they are just pawns in the game."
Mo Hannah, psychology professor at Siena College, near Albany, N.Y., used the Internet to organize the first annual conference for battered women seeking custody in 2004, after her own difficult custody battle.
This past January marked the seventh gathering, which meets annually in Albany and is the major organizing and networking event of the year for protective parents.
"The first conference was about getting people to talk and validate their experiences," Hannah said. "But as the conferences continued it became very clear that we needed a national movement. Now the conference is just sort of an umbrella or structure that encourages people to share with each other."
Over the seven years, women have met at the conference and formed smaller groups, such as the Massachusetts Protective Mothers for Custodial Justice.
"Mass Moms," as it has come to be known, brings together women who have gone through custody battles with those currently in the throes. Volunteers accompany women to court and on lawyer visits and play a general shepherding role.
"We stand next to a woman who is fighting for her children while she pleads and receives orders," one Mass Mom told Women's eNews at January's Battered Mothers Custody Conference.
These volunteers have all been through their own custody battles and declined to be named for fear of retribution from their ex-husbands or the court system. Many have gag orders associated with their own cases. It is this type of fear of retribution that has helped keep the protective parents movement under the radar.
Fear Stands in the Way
The California Protective Custody Association's Valentine understands the fear that keeps women from protesting and fighting the bigger battles.
"I waited until my own children were grown so we weren't affected by the family court system," she said.
Valentine says advocates and organizers need to study and replicate the successful civil rights campaigns of the past.
"Slavery was ended with a good law but slavery wasn't ended because a good law happened to come about. The law happened because huge masses of people put their lives on the line and fought for it," Valentine said.
This year "Mass Moms" is preparing to add some more public activism to their advocacy with a demonstration taking place in Boston on a date to be announced soon. In what they're planning to call "Confetti," the moms will symbolically shred court-appointed guardian reports--which they feel are particularly unfair to protective parents--into little bits and toss them at the statehouse to call attention to the plight of protective mothers fighting for custody of their children.
In New York City, a group called V.O.W., or Voices of Women, has been working within the court system to try to provide legal counsel and one-on-one help for women. On a wider scale its mission is to "promote long-term systemic change by documenting institutional failures, testifying at hearings, creating position papers and meeting with local and state officials."
Both Valentine and Hannah say this is the right time to take the movement to the next level.
"The new president is a fatherless man with a good wife and they will hear us," said Valentine. "And if they don't hear us, Vice President Joe Biden worked on the violence against women act and he will hear us. And if they don't hear us we will keep going until they do hear us."
Mary Darcy is a multimedia producer/host and documentary filmmaker. She's a two time Gracie Award winner for her work with Kate Mulgrew on Herstory and The Sounds of Progress, public radio series about great women in science. Darcy is a co-owner in Uptown/Downtown Media, producers of Alloveralbany.com.
For more information:
Battered Mothers Custody Conference
http://www.
Battered Mothers Custody Conference California Protective Parents Association http://www.protectiveparents.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Indiana Civil Court Judges: Are You That Stupid or That Corrupt?
Most children I know care for their mothers very, very much. A lot of them would try and protect their mother, just as this son did recently in Indianapolis. Do you think this boy will have loving feelings toward the boyfriend? Should he? What if mom got him in to counseling to not be afraid of the boyfriend anymore, even though he watched him almost kill his mom?
She would bend over backwards to have him not afraid of the boyfriend, and still an Indiana judge would gladly hand over that child to the abuser if they were in a custody battle. It happens all the time here. WHY?
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications are tired of the corruption/incompetence in family court. Don't you guys know anything about the fact that when a child is afraid of an abuser, it is probably for a good reason? Do you guy subscribe to any ethical rules and practices. Maybe you need to read this from the National Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
She would bend over backwards to have him not afraid of the boyfriend, and still an Indiana judge would gladly hand over that child to the abuser if they were in a custody battle. It happens all the time here. WHY?
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications are tired of the corruption/incompetence in family court. Don't you guys know anything about the fact that when a child is afraid of an abuser, it is probably for a good reason? Do you guy subscribe to any ethical rules and practices. Maybe you need to read this from the National Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Civil Legal Aid Groups Soon to Receive Funds from the Indiana Supreme Court
The Indiana Supreme Court has money going to agencies that can provide legal help for your child custody situation, if you cannot afford a lawyer. Visit the agencies listed in their press release below and seek help to fix what the courts did to you in the first place. Good luck...
In January 2010, agencies that provide low income Hoosiers with civil legal services will receive funding from the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana General Assembly appropriates the funding for the Civil Legal Aid Fund and the Indiana Supreme Court awards the grant money to qualified agencies across the state.
Civil cases involve a conflict between people or business, such as foreclosure or divorce. In criminal cases, the government brings a charge against a person accused of a crime and an attorney is provided at state expense if the defendant cannot afford one. The Supreme Court is committed to ensuring that individuals involved in civil matters also have access to attorneys. The Supreme Court will provide $1.5 million to civil legal aid groups in 2010. The first installment, totaling $750,000, will be provided in January 2010 to the following eleven agencies.
Legal Aid - District Eleven
$8,369.19
Community Organizations Legal Assistance Program
$24,675.72
Elkhart Legal Aid Service, Inc.
$12,344.39
Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
$479,012.74
Indianapolis Legal Aid Society, Inc.
$46,126.50
Law School Legal Service, Inc.
$24,675.72
Legal Aid Corporation of Tippecanoe County
$5,020.32
Legal Aid Society of Evansville, Inc.
$13,650.05
Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic
$80,315.63
Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.
$24,675.72
Volunteer Lawyer Program of Northeast Indiana, Inc.
$31,134.02
TOTAL: $750,000.00
To qualify for Indiana Supreme Court Civil Legal Aid funding, an agency must be an Indiana non-profit that provides civil legal aid services to the poor without charge. The above agencies across the state meet those specifications.
In a separate effort to help civil legal aid, the Court also recently agreed to provide funding to the Indiana Bar Foundation’s Justice Givan Loan Repayment Assistance Program for Indiana or LRAP-IN. That program is designed to help civil legal aid attorneys with lower incomes and often high educational debt to repay student loans. The Court will provide up to $200,000 to LRAP-IN to help Indiana civil legal aid groups recruit and retain qualified attorneys.
Both efforts are designed to help provide legal service programs for the poor. For more information about the Indiana Supreme Court and the Civil Legal Aid Fund, visit courts.in.gov.
 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 23, 2009 | Contact: Kathryn Dolan 317.234.4722 |
INDIANA SUPREME COURT PROVIDES $750,000 IN FUNDING TO CIVIL LEGAL AID GROUPS IN JANUARY 2010 | ||
In January 2010, agencies that provide low income Hoosiers with civil legal services will receive funding from the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana General Assembly appropriates the funding for the Civil Legal Aid Fund and the Indiana Supreme Court awards the grant money to qualified agencies across the state.
Civil cases involve a conflict between people or business, such as foreclosure or divorce. In criminal cases, the government brings a charge against a person accused of a crime and an attorney is provided at state expense if the defendant cannot afford one. The Supreme Court is committed to ensuring that individuals involved in civil matters also have access to attorneys. The Supreme Court will provide $1.5 million to civil legal aid groups in 2010. The first installment, totaling $750,000, will be provided in January 2010 to the following eleven agencies.
Legal Aid - District Eleven
$8,369.19
Community Organizations Legal Assistance Program
$24,675.72
Elkhart Legal Aid Service, Inc.
$12,344.39
Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
$479,012.74
Indianapolis Legal Aid Society, Inc.
$46,126.50
Law School Legal Service, Inc.
$24,675.72
Legal Aid Corporation of Tippecanoe County
$5,020.32
Legal Aid Society of Evansville, Inc.
$13,650.05
Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic
$80,315.63
Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.
$24,675.72
Volunteer Lawyer Program of Northeast Indiana, Inc.
$31,134.02
TOTAL: $750,000.00
To qualify for Indiana Supreme Court Civil Legal Aid funding, an agency must be an Indiana non-profit that provides civil legal aid services to the poor without charge. The above agencies across the state meet those specifications.
In a separate effort to help civil legal aid, the Court also recently agreed to provide funding to the Indiana Bar Foundation’s Justice Givan Loan Repayment Assistance Program for Indiana or LRAP-IN. That program is designed to help civil legal aid attorneys with lower incomes and often high educational debt to repay student loans. The Court will provide up to $200,000 to LRAP-IN to help Indiana civil legal aid groups recruit and retain qualified attorneys.
Both efforts are designed to help provide legal service programs for the poor. For more information about the Indiana Supreme Court and the Civil Legal Aid Fund, visit courts.in.gov.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Madison County Judge FINALLY Gets Fired after Being Punished THREE TIMES Previously By Indiana Judicial Commission
"Spencer had been disciplined by the commission three times in prior cases that resulted in a 30-day suspension without pay, a public reprimand and a public admonition."Pretty pathetic. Disciplined THREE TIMES. (How many times was Danielle Gregory punished before she was fired?)...is there special protection for corrupt male judges over corrupt female judges in Indiana? Why are any of them around (including those on the Hall of Shame)...disregard for the law should be a one-way ticket off the bench. After all, most of these corrupt judges take children from mothers and give them to abusers, to the detriment of our children.
From WRTV-6:
Judge Resigns Amid Investigation Into Murder Case
Disciplinary Investigation Dropped
MADISON COUNTY, Ind. -- A Madison County judge will resign amid an investigation into his handling of a murder case.Circuit Court Judge Fredrick Spencer, 71, was the subject of a probe by the Judicial Qualifications Commission regarding the case of State v. Ward, 6News' Derrik Thomas reported.
Spencer had been disciplined by the commission three times in prior cases that resulted in a 30-day suspension without pay, a public reprimand and a public admonition.
His resignation will halt the current investigation."For his actions related to a murder case, Judge Spencer has tendered his resignation to the Judicial Qualifications Commission. In light of his resignation, the commission is no longer investigating the case," said Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan.
Former Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings tried more than 30 cases in front of Spencer. While he had many public disagreements with the judge, he said he wished him well."Careers come to an end. I hope for Judge Spencer's sake, it is a happy day for him," he said. "I hope, even though there have been issues that have drawn media attention, I hope it doesn't get overshadowed by some of the other things that he did."
Friday will be the final day of Spencer's 26-year career as a judge.The Indiana Supreme Court will appoint a temporary judge to fill his position. His successor will be appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Another Crooked Marion County Judge Caught: Adios Muchacha!
From WTHR:Judge loses job over texting during hearings
Updated: Sep 21, 2009 5:08 PM EDTSandra Chapman/13 Investigates
Indianapolis - Teens are warned every day not to text anything inappropriate, and definitely not while behind the wheel or in the classroom.
But it's a message that escaped a Marion County Juvenile Magistrate. She was fired for texting violations while hearing cases.
Most assume unrestrained texting is a juvenile problem. At the Marion County Juvenile Court, where camera phones are banned, it isn't just troubled teens with busy fingers but a magistrate caught breaking the rules.
According to a court disciplinary record obtained by 13 Investigates, Magistrate Danielle Gregory engaged in inappropriate conduct, texting a married male employee in the middle of more than one juvenile hearing.
Outside the court, visitors couldn't believe it.
"Really?" questioned one mom while another man chimed in, "That's crazy."
Ashley Wingler, who was told she couldn't bring in a cell phone because it would interrupt proceedings, found it just as troubling. "The judge should be more interested in the hearing instead of texting on the phone," she said.
In fact, Gregory's supervisor writes in the disciplinary record that "Multiple text messages were sent from [Gregory's] cell phone number to [the male employee's] cell phone during court hours including times [she] was on the bench conducting court sessions."
"Text messages were sent from your phone...on August 7th during a court session...and the messages included sending three pictures of yourself," the report read.
"That's inappropriate. You on your phone and texting, sending pictures while you're having court, that's inappropriate," said Robert Lasley as he awaited a hearing Monday afternoon.
Within less than an hour outside the facility at 2451 North Keystone Avenue, nearly a dozen parents were turned away from the juvenile court because of camera phones. But it might surprise some to learn that the Marion Superior Court does not have a policy against texting from the bench.
Instead, Gregory was terminated for violating court policies, including: "committing any act while off duty that would discredit the Court," and for "immoral, unprofessional, or disruptive behavior while on duty."
According to the disciplinary report, the male employee on the receiving end was assigned to mentor families in the court.
Indiana Supreme Court Spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan told 13 Investigates, "Behavior for judicial officers, including judges and magistrates, is guided by the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct. And while the code does not specifically deal with new media, it does provide specific and detailed information on how judicial officers are required to behave."
"She should have been fired, you know. Definitely shouldn't have been doing that. Especially being a judge...she should have definitely known better," said Jim, the father of an incarcerated teen being held at the center, agreeing with the decision to fire Gregory.
"I think that's terrible," added Tavia Norman, in disbelief. "Of course I would want them paying attention to what's going on. Shouldn't no judge or nobody should be texting on the cell phones," she said.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Evan Bayh is Not His Father's Son
I heard this comment in a meeting yesterday, and how true it is. Evan Bayh just is not his father's son.
In Birch Bayh's eyes, women should be given the same chances that men have. Women deserved equality and this was evident in his legislation.
In Birch Bayh's eyes, women should be given the same chances that men have. Women deserved equality and this was evident in his legislation.
Former U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, considered the "father" of Title IX, the landmark federal legislation created more than 30 years ago that greatly expanded educational and athletics opportunities for girls and women, was honored during half-time of the women's basketball game between UConn and Rutgers on Martin Luther King Day.
 |
| Former U.S. Senator |
"Thanks to Title IX, women have taken their rightful place in American education - as students, teachers, administrators, and athletes," said U.S. Sen. Christopher R. Dodd, in joining University President Philip Austin to present the award. "Sen. Bayh's leadership as original author of this legislation has directly impacted the millions of young women whose lives have been touched and bettered through equality in education, collegiate athletics, and opportunities for success in virtually every aspect of American life."
Although UConn began admitting women in 1893, many publicly funded universities did not admit women, and many women who did enter universities were discouraged from studying math, science, law, or medicine, before Title IX became law in 1972, Dodd said. Perhaps the most profound change came in the area of athletics, however; and participation by women in virtually every sport has boomed since passage of the act.
"Title IX represented a major advance not just for women, but for all Americans and for higher education," said University President Philip E. Austin. "I'm proud that UConn has a long and worthy tradition in making a university education accessible to women, and I'm especially proud of our efforts to encourage women to pursue their aspirations in fields in which they have been historically underrepresented.
"And of course, the success of our women's sports programs and what that means for all the people of Connecticut speaks for itself," Austin added.
Sen. Bayh also played a leadership role in many other areas and in framing two Constitutional amendments: the 26th Amendment, which lowered the legal voting age to 18, and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, which has been ratified by 35 states, including Connecticut.
Bayh, who also served in the Indiana House of Representatives, represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate from 1963 to 1981.
But for Evan Bayh, this apple has fallen far from the tree...
Senator Bayh sent out this wonderful message for fathers on Father’s Day to the Hoosiers he represents. He missed sending out a message for mothers…tells you a lot, doesn’t it. He is up for re-election next year….Hoosiers mothers, are you paying attention?
Watch out for these bill just introduced:
S. 1309, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) and two co-sponsors.
H.R. 2979, introduced by Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7) and 27 co-sponsors.
President Obama told Senator Bayh last year he would sign the bill when he gets it.
The 2006 attempt at this bill (with U.S. Senator Barack Obama as one of the two co-sponsors) died:
The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.
This one needs to die too.
Is it fair for our government tax dollars to go help take children from mothers, to help fund a custody battle in court, help that is only available to fathers? These funds pay for dads to do this. All dads are not good (see Dastardly Dads) Why should we help abusers take children from their moms. The American Judge's Association knows this is a problem, why do you want to fund abusers to take custody of the children?
Yes, Evan, your dad took time to be with you. He didn't seek to take your mother out of your life though, did he? Yes, this apple has fallen very far from the tree.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Family Courts are Warned Against Use of So-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome"
From Rights For Mothers:
Here is the new Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department. Again the fake, so-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and the use of "parental alienation" is warned against and the Council tells the courts they should not accept this BS.
The only entities that do believe in this fairy tale syndrome is father's rights groups who are fronted by abusive violent men and the Whores of the Court that sustain themselves by use of these false syndromes.
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
To read the entire report, "A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)" by National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department, please click here. This report should be very useful to both moms and dads who are under attack by claims of PAS against them.
Here is the new Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department. Again the fake, so-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and the use of "parental alienation" is warned against and the Council tells the courts they should not accept this BS.
The only entities that do believe in this fairy tale syndrome is father's rights groups who are fronted by abusive violent men and the Whores of the Court that sustain themselves by use of these false syndromes.
2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
To read the entire report, "A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)" by National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department, please click here. This report should be very useful to both moms and dads who are under attack by claims of PAS against them.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Dr. Richard Gardner: "Sex with Children is Not a Bad Thing"
In 1985, "Paretnal Alienation Syndrome," or PAS for short, was first described by Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist who wrote that adults having sex with children is not a bad thing. Gardner described PAS as a “syndrome” whereby vengeful mothers employed child abuse allegations as a powerful weapon to punish ex-husbands and ensure custody to themselves. He further theorized that such protective parents enlisted the children in their “campaign of denigration” and “vilification” of the abuser, that they often “brainwashed” or “programmed” the children into believing untrue claims of abuse by the father, and that the children then fabricated and contributed their own stories.
Since 1985, abusers have come to convince family courts to ignore children’s allegations of abuse by invoking parental alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. They wrongly claim that mothers are to blame because they are brainwashing their children.
2006 – The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges also discredited the theory. It stated:
The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.
One of the most troubling consequences of Gardner’s theory is that, “PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behaviour of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child.”
As a result, some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized. In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the danger surrounding the fictitious syndrome.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Isn't it Time for Someone to Call Cut?
Keira Knightley stars in video to raise awareness of domestic violence for Women's Aid in the UK. WARNING: MAY TRIGGER.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
When Judicial Misconduct Happens in Indiana, Public Action is Taken Against the Bad Judge Only 1% of the Time
Indiana Law - Feature on discipline of Indiana judges
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published this feature story today on judicial discipline in Indiana. Some quotes:
Of the more than 1,000 allegations of judicial misconduct investigated by a state panel in the past four fiscal years, public discipline was taken against judges only slightly more than 1 percent of the time. But dozens of private cautions - or confidential letters of warning - were issued by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which also dismissed 85 percent of the complaints.
Although lawmakers are subject to public ethics challenges and discipline against police officers is open, state law and a Supreme Court rule keep the vast majority of complaints against judges under wraps. * * *
[N]early all cases are disposed of before the public gets a chance to look at them - either by a flat dismissal or a private scolding. Of 1,013 allegations or complaints filed the past four fiscal years, 801 were immediately dismissed.
[Meg Babcock, attorney for the qualifications commission,] said this number is so high because many of the allegations are actually issues for legal appeal, such as when a defendant is unhappy with a ruling or sentence. The commission focuses only on judicial conduct.
Some cases continue to an inquiry stage - 185 in recent years. During that stage, the judge might be contacted and some basic information gathered. The seven-member commission then decides whether to dismiss the case or move to a formal investigation.
Of those 185 cases, 62 were dismissed and 82 ended in private cautions. Those are essentially letters that warn judges their behavior might be on or over the line of ethical conduct.
"They are usually a minor discretion by a judge," said Ann Borne, a Fort Wayne teacher who served two terms on the commission under former governors Evan Bayh and Frank O'Bannon.
"Whether it stays private partly has a lot to do with the attitude of the judge," she said. "Sometimes the judge is very defensive and that means we have to go further and look for patterns or problems. If there are no priors and they feel remorseful, we may go ahead and do the private caution."
Indiana isn't much different from the rest of the country, where most judicial commissions' proceedings only become public at the point of a charge or when the judge is disciplined.Here is the website of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The right column of the page provides links to a number of useful items, including Activities, which leads to detailed annual reports for each year. The most recent report covers July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 and provides a complete review of the complaints received and actions taken during that period.
Also of interest are the links to: Advisory Opinions, which cover questions involving law practices of part-time judges, fundraising activites, nepotism, etc.; and to Disciplinary Function, an overview of the Commission's disciplinary process.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 30, 2004 12:39 PM
Posted to Indiana Law
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published this feature story today on judicial discipline in Indiana. Some quotes:
Of the more than 1,000 allegations of judicial misconduct investigated by a state panel in the past four fiscal years, public discipline was taken against judges only slightly more than 1 percent of the time. But dozens of private cautions - or confidential letters of warning - were issued by the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which also dismissed 85 percent of the complaints.
Although lawmakers are subject to public ethics challenges and discipline against police officers is open, state law and a Supreme Court rule keep the vast majority of complaints against judges under wraps. * * *
[N]early all cases are disposed of before the public gets a chance to look at them - either by a flat dismissal or a private scolding. Of 1,013 allegations or complaints filed the past four fiscal years, 801 were immediately dismissed.
[Meg Babcock, attorney for the qualifications commission,] said this number is so high because many of the allegations are actually issues for legal appeal, such as when a defendant is unhappy with a ruling or sentence. The commission focuses only on judicial conduct.
Some cases continue to an inquiry stage - 185 in recent years. During that stage, the judge might be contacted and some basic information gathered. The seven-member commission then decides whether to dismiss the case or move to a formal investigation.
Of those 185 cases, 62 were dismissed and 82 ended in private cautions. Those are essentially letters that warn judges their behavior might be on or over the line of ethical conduct.
"They are usually a minor discretion by a judge," said Ann Borne, a Fort Wayne teacher who served two terms on the commission under former governors Evan Bayh and Frank O'Bannon.
"Whether it stays private partly has a lot to do with the attitude of the judge," she said. "Sometimes the judge is very defensive and that means we have to go further and look for patterns or problems. If there are no priors and they feel remorseful, we may go ahead and do the private caution."
Indiana isn't much different from the rest of the country, where most judicial commissions' proceedings only become public at the point of a charge or when the judge is disciplined.Here is the website of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The right column of the page provides links to a number of useful items, including Activities, which leads to detailed annual reports for each year. The most recent report covers July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 and provides a complete review of the complaints received and actions taken during that period.
Also of interest are the links to: Advisory Opinions, which cover questions involving law practices of part-time judges, fundraising activites, nepotism, etc.; and to Disciplinary Function, an overview of the Commission's disciplinary process.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 30, 2004 12:39 PM
Posted to Indiana Law
How to File Complaints Against Indiana Judges and Lawyers
Indiana Judge Complaints
Contact the Indiana Commission of Judicial Qualifications. To file a complaint about a judge in Indiana: www.in.gov/judiciary
An Adobe or fillable PDF complaint form is available online.
Indiana Judicial Complaint Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee
115 W. Washington Street Suite 1080
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Indiana Lawyer Complaints
Disciplinary Commission handles complaints about lawyers in Indiana. To file a complaint about a lawyer in Indiana: http://www.in.gov/
Lawyer Complaint Mailing Address
Disciplinary Commission
115 W. Washington St., Suite 1165
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone
317-232-1807
Complaints about Indiana Judges and Indiana Lawyers
Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint about the Indiana Judge with sufficient documentation. Contact the Indiana Commission of Judicial Qualifications.
All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state supreme court. Complaints can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to Disciplinary Commission. Check the Indiana web site http://www.in.gov/ to find the requirements for a complaint about a Indiana Lawyer.
Contact the Indiana Commission of Judicial Qualifications. To file a complaint about a judge in Indiana: www.in.gov/judiciary
An Adobe or fillable PDF complaint form is available online.
Indiana Judicial Complaint Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee
115 W. Washington Street Suite 1080
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Indiana Lawyer Complaints
Disciplinary Commission handles complaints about lawyers in Indiana. To file a complaint about a lawyer in Indiana: http://www.in.gov/
Lawyer Complaint Mailing Address
Disciplinary Commission
115 W. Washington St., Suite 1165
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone
317-232-1807
Complaints about Indiana Judges and Indiana Lawyers
Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint about the Indiana Judge with sufficient documentation. Contact the Indiana Commission of Judicial Qualifications.
All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state supreme court. Complaints can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to Disciplinary Commission. Check the Indiana web site http://www.in.gov/ to find the requirements for a complaint about a Indiana Lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
