Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Kansas --Made a “Deal” and Sold a Child to her Abuser-- so HE Could Become Chief Judge--HAPPY ANNIVERSAY – Mother Fucker

Americans For Prosperity and Kansas Judges-Claudine Dombrowski

July 31, 2010---Happy Anniversary you sick shit—I have not forgotten you---I Have not gone away ---I will NOT SHUT UP and YOU are not forgotten-- 

Ten Years ago--July 31, 2000, Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court,  of Topeka Kansas Made a 'deal' with prior Judge James P Buchele - to  "Take the child away from mother-give her to her known rapist and drug/alcohol wife beating father—DADDY HAL RICHARDSON  So he could  become Chief Judge" --he did- and he did.

See Manhattan Free Press ...

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court

Shawnee County District Court-- Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 - Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND  convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

CRIMINAL Halleck George RICHARDSON II, TOPEKA KANSAS MINUTE MAN SOLOR FILM TOPEKA KANSAS

OUTRAGES

NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies - 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances...

THESE CASES ARE NOT "TRAGEDIES". THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:

Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN

KANSAS

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
            Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
            But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vaccuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

RICHARD ANDERSON---- Topeka Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake

Manhattan Free Press

MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child's coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson's wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child's coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can't be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal's report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."

Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."

And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine's attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."

Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitued changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor's reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."

When asked about Mr. Richardson's criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women's Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.

In Judge Buchele's Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski's unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff's Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receiveds help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele's previous orders. Evan the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

OUT RAGES

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the "man" who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine's history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here

If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here

AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994

AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996

AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000

AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003

THE "COFFEE TABLE" IN THE FATHER'S HOME IS A CHILD'S COFFIN.  MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court. This is a KANSAS CASE! The Claudine Dombrowski Case.

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence There is a crisis in our nation’s family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to … As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the[more...]

ShareThis

• CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

• 

  A special Mothers Day Article
  By Barry Goldstein

  For many years, protective mothers have complained about a broken custody court system giving custody to abusive fathers. The courts dismissed the complaints by saying they came from disgruntled litigants. Now, a new book based on multi-disciplinary research has confirmed that common mistakes in the custody[more...]

WordPress Tags: Judge,Richard,Anderson,Shawnee,Kansas,Made,Deal,Child,Abuser,Could,Become,Chief,ANNIVERSAY,Mother,Fucker,Americans,Judges,Claudine,Dombrowski,Anniversary,SHUT,Court,Topeka,James,Buchele,Take,drug,wife,father,DADDY,RICHARDSON,Manhattan,Free,Deprivation,Abuse,District,Street,Order,REPEAT,daughter,KNOWN,Batterer,RAPIST,CRIMINAL,Halleck,George,MINUTE,SOLOR,FILM,NOTE,Trag,drama,consequence,flaw,CASES,ethics,ideas,CHILDREN,CASE,custody,Rikki,testimony,behavior,Battery,Enforcement,Officer,Obstruction,Legal,Possession,Marijuana,violation,Open,Container,times,Worse,permission,manager,orders,prohibition,Guardian,Scott,McKenzie,portion,hell,America,Courts,Woman,Brake,Solid,foot,brass,coffin,Count,victim,Domestic,Violence,State,System,letter,Division,Harry,Services,Mexico,weapon,logic,instance,owner,Mauser,firearm,German,soldier,World,Europe,room,ownership,conclusion,Nazi,furniture,message,messages,documents,Service,workers,Dombrowske,November,Divorce,papers,records,Damage,conviction,Most,Probation,Conditions,Program,Women,Task,Force,comments,Client,facilitator,stance,sexist,language,refusal,Another,fact,proceedings,Throughout,reports,incident,piece,wood,June,Leuenberger,Great,Bend,area,history,Attorney,Litem,Under,direction,Trial,problems,hearsay,doctor,truth,misdemeanor,management,therapy,Here,Mutual,involvement,decision,dialogue,relationship,separation,parent,judgment,Further,authorities,petitioner,December,Marys,treatment,Hospital,Pottawatomie,Sheriff,event,Department,attention,National,Organization,Judicial,Initiative,Commission,Citizens,Justice,retirement,Evan,Webmaster,FULL,IACHR,relationships,BIRTH,HUSBAND,BEAT,ASSAULT,COFFEE,TABLE,HOME,WALL,ABOVE,SOFA,Litigation,Boggles,Mind,Line,Trip,Stop,crisis,nation,ShareThis,PROTECTIVE,Article,Barry,Goldstein,disciplinary,TRAGEDIES,decisions,convictions,feet,interruptions,sessions,violations,accusations,periods,fathers,Photos,complaints,alcohol,four,attorneys,three,months,visitation,week

Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders

Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders

| Michael Flood

More articles about:

• Fathering
• Men’s & fathers’ rights
• Violence

Summary

Myth:

Women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence and rape, including to gain advantage in family law cases. And women use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children.

Facts:

• The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.
• Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.
• Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.
• Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.
• Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

Note that this fact sheet is also available in PDF. (See below.)

The myth

Fathers’ rights groups assert that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence. In its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association (2004, pp. 11, 38) states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any actual violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.

The facts

The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.

There is no doubt that family court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this reflects the fact that domestic violence often escalates at the time of separation. Australian data from a national survey in 1996 show that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996, p. 8).

Similarly, North American research documents that the risks of nonlethal and lethal violence are highest for women when they are leaving the male partners with whom they have been living in an intimate relationship (DeKeseredy et al., 2004, p. 677). Separated women are at elevated risk of violence by men, whether physical, sexual, or lethal, relative to women in intact unions (Brownridge, 2006), and women are at risk of increasingly severe violence when separating from violent partners (Riggs et al., 2000). The risk of post-separation violence decreases with the passage of time since separation, and is greatest in the first two or three months after the commencement of the separation, at least from homicide data.

Further situational variables influence post-separation violence. Leaving a marital or cohabiting relationship or trying to leave it increases women’s changes of being physically or sexually assaulted especially if they are connected to men with patriarchal and/or sexually proprietary attitudes (DeKeseredy et al., 2004). Women are at greater risk of post-separation violence if they are more ‘available’ for victimisation: if they live in the same city as their former partner, and at risker times such as court appearances and exchanges of or visits to children (Brownridge, 2006). The presence of a new partner can be either a risk or a protective factor, as can children. For example, joint custody may become an opportunity for conflict and violence, may increase opportunities for violence at visitation and the exchange of children, and children may be used as tools for violence by abusive men (Brownridge, 2006).

The relationship between pre- and post-separation violence is shaped by other variables such as the duration of the union and the severity and frequency of pre-separation violence. There is evidence that post-separation violence often is a continuation of violence that occurred during the relationship and that a substantial proportion of such violence is a new phenomenon (Brownridge, 2006).

Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.

Existing research finds that most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims. Two studies have examined rates of substantiated allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings, and they find that allegations are substantiated in 63 to 74 percent of cases (Shaffer and Bala, 2003; Johnston et al., 2005). The remainder are unsubstantiated – where either there is insufficient information to support substantiation or where there is a determination that the allegation is false.

A Canadian study of family law cases in which written decisions were produced over a three-year period identified 42 recorded cases of spousal abuse alleged against men. Seventy-four percent of these were substantiated. Only two cases of spousal abuse alleged against women were identified, one of which was substantiated (Shaffer and Bala, 2003). However, as the authors note, in the cases where the courts found the allegations to be exaggerated or unfounded, in some instances the courts gave no reasons for this conclusion, and in at least some cases, judges failed to recognise the existence or seriousness of actual abuse (Shaffer and Bala, 2003).

A US study drew on documentary records describing 120 divorced families referred for child custody evaluations and custody counselling, collected over 1989 to 2002 from family courts within San Francisco Bay Area counties. Multiple allegations of child abuse, neglect, and family violence were raised in the majority of cases. Allegations were assessed on the basis of detailed interviews with family members, information from professionals, and analysis of written documentation. This study found that 63 percent of allegations of abuse by one adult of another (including domestic violence and substance misuse) were substantiated (Johnston et al., 2005). Allegations were more likely to be substantiated against men than against women (67 versus 55 percent). In other words, counter to some popular perceptions, men rather than women were more likely to make allegations of domestic violence (and substance abuse) in family law proceedings which were not substantiated. However, this study cannot determine rates of false allegations, as it could not distinguish among ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations between those which were false and those which could not be determined due to lack of evidence (Johnston et al., 2005).

Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.

The evidence is that rates of intentionally false and/or malicious accusations of rape are very low. For example, the most recent British study determines that only three per cent of rapes reported to the police were either ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ false allegations (Kelly et al. 2005). Australian studies are similar. For example, in an analysis of 850 rapes reported to Victoria Police over three years, only 2.1 per cent of reports were identified by police as false (Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault 2006: 5). Three earlier studies in Australia, based on police data from 1986 to 1990, find rates of false reports of sexual assault of 1.4 per cent, 4.8 per cent, and 7 per cent (VLRC 2004: 112).

Some other studies claim that rates of false allegations of sexual assault are much higher. However, as a recent review notes, there is considerable diversity in definitions of falsity, in how allegations are judged to be false, and in methods for collecting data regarding the extent of false allegations (Rumney 2006: 130-132). For example, some studies which find apparently high rates of false rape allegations take at face value the judgements made by police officers on the basis of stereotypical assumptions regarding rape victims and their responses to victimisation (ibid: 142).

There is no doubt that false allegations of rape and domestic violence sometimes are made. At the same time, there is nothing to suggest that these are common or that women make them more often than men (Davis, 2004). In addition, false allegations of violence and abuse are far less common than false denials of their perpetration (Jaffe et al., 2008).

Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.

There is further evidence that most allegations of domestic violence express women’s genuine concerns for their and/or their children’s safety. Research in Australia finds that women going through family court proceedings and living with domestic violence do not routinely take out protection orders in response. In a study of 176 files in which children’s matters were contested, while 95 of the files (54 per cent) included evidence of domestic violence Apprehended Violence Orders had not been obtained in over a third of these (Melville & Hunter, 2001, pp. 127-128).

In addition, women often only take out protection orders against domestic violence as a last resort after being subjected to repeated and serious victimization (Melville & Hunter, 2001). Among young women aged 18 to 23, women are more likely to seek legal protection if they have experienced more severe levels of violence (e.g. including being beaten, choked or shot at), have been injured, and have children (Young et al., 2000, p. 3). Earlier research into the use of apprehended domestic violence orders found that the majority of complainants had experienced physical violence on more than one occasion (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997).

Legal authorities themselves reject the view that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence. For example, bodies such as the Criminal Law Review Division of the NSW Attorney-General’s Department reject the view that women use protection orders in family law proceedings to gain a tactical advantage (Simpson, 2000, p. 18). In New Zealand, reviews by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice find no evidence to support the claim that women are making strategic use of protection orders, based for example on false allegations of domestic violence, to gain strategic advantage in family law cases (Davis, 2004).

In fact, Australian research finds that most women who have experienced violence in relationships still want their children to have some contact with the other parent, but what they seek (and often do not receive) is an arrangement which ensures safety for their children and themselves (Kaye et al., 2003).

Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

The Australian evidence is that protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence. An early study in New South Wales found that the vast majority of complainants experienced a reduction in violence and abuse from the defendant in the six months after the order was served on the defendant, and over 90 per cent reported that the order had produced benefits such as reduced contact with the defendant and increased personal safety and comfort (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997). Finally, research among young women aged 18 to 23 and subjected to violence by intimate partners found that “preventive strategies for young women at the early stage of a relationship can eliminate, or at least reduce, physical violence by a partner” (Young et al., 2000, p. 5). The severity of violence was reduced after legal protection, but the benefit was not as marked unless women sought help from the courts as well as the police.

References cited

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Women’s Safety Australia (cat. no. 4128.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Brownridge, D. A. (2006). Violence against women post-separation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5): 514-530.
Davis, W. (2004) Gender Bias, Fathers’ Rights, Domestic Violence and the Family Court. Butterworths Family Law Journal, December: 299-312.
DeKeseredy, W. S., Rogness, M., & Schwartz, M. D. (2004). Separation/divorce sexual assault: The current state of social scientific knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 675-691.
Jaffe, Peter G., Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, and Nicholas Bala. (2008).  Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3): 500-522.
Johnston, J. R., S. Lee, N.W. Olesen, and M.G. Walters. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 283–294.
Kelly L, Lovett, J & Regan, L 2005, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London.
Lone Fathers Association Australia. (2004). Protection orders legislation review. (ACT). Discussion Paper: Comments by Lone Fathers Association. (Australia). Inc. Canberra.
Melville, A., & Hunter, R. (2001). ‘As everybody knows’: Countering myths of gender bias in family law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1), 124-138.
Riggs, D. S., M. B. Caulfield, & A.B. Street (2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology 56(10): 1289-1316.
Rumney, N.S. (2006). False Allegations of Rape. Cambridge Law Journal, 65, March, pp.128-158.
Shaffer, M., and N. Bala. (2003). Wife abuse, child custody and access in Canada. In R. Geffner, R. S. Ingelman, & J. Zellner (Eds.), The effects of intimate partner violence on children  (pp. 253–276). New York: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.
Simpson, R. (2000). Incidence and regulation of domestic violence in New South Wales (Briefing Paper 4/2000). Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Library.
Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault. (2006). Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria 2000-2003: Summary Research Report. Melbourne: Office of Women’s Policy.
Trimboli, L., & Bonney, R. (1997). An evaluation of the NSW apprehended violence order scheme. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
VLRC 2004, Sexual offences: law and procedure: final report, Victorian Law Reform Commission, Melbourne.
Young, M., Byles, J., & Dobson, A. (2000). The effectiveness of legal protection in the prevention of domestic violence in the lives of young Australian women. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 148, 1-6.

Contact

This Fact Sheet may be circulated. It may be reproduced with acknowledgement to Dr Michael Flood. Direct correspondence to mflood [at] uow.edu.au.

Attachment
Size

False Accusations DV Rape 2010.pdf
92.35 KB

Blogger Labels: Fact,Sheet,myth,violence,protection,orders,Michael,Flood,rights,Summary,Women,advantage,cases,children,Facts,separation,Most,context,proceedings,faith,Rates,resort,Note,submission,Association,procedure,Australian,data,partners,Bureau,Statistics,North,American,documents,male,relationship,DeKeseredy,Brownridge,Riggs,greatest,commencement,homicide,Further,times,exchanges,factor,example,custody,tools,duration,frequency,continuation,proportion,phenomenon,Shaffer,Bala,Johnston,remainder,substantiation,determination,allegation,Canadian,period,courts,conclusion,judges,existence,records,Francisco,Area,Multiple,basis,analysis,documentation,substance,words,British,Victoria,Police,reports,Statewide,Committee,Reduce,Sexual,Assault,Three,Australia,VLRC,Some,notes,extent,Rumney,victims,Davis,addition,Jaffe,Research,response,files,Melville,Hunter,victimization,Among,Young,Earlier,Trimboli,Bonney,Legal,authorities,Criminal,Review,Division,Attorney,General,Department,Simpson,Zealand,Commission,Ministry,Justice,relationships,parent,arrangement,Kaye,South,Wales,reduction,benefits,Canberra,Aggression,Violent,Behavior,Gender,Bias,Domestic,Court,Butterworths,Journal,December,Schwartz,knowledge,Peter,Janet,Claire,Nicholas,plans,Olesen,Walters,Lovett,Regan,chasm,Attrition,Child,Woman,Abuse,Unit,London,Metropolitan,Home,Office,Development,Directorate,Discussion,Paper,Comments,everybody,myths,Griffith,Caulfield,Street,Risk,Clinical,Psychology,False,Rape,Cambridge,March,Wife,Canada,Geffner,Ingelman,Zellner,York,Haworth,Maltreatment,Trauma,Incidence,regulation,Sydney,Parliamentary,Library,Study,Rapes,Report,Melbourne,Policy,evaluation,Crime,Victorian,Reform,Byles,Dobson,prevention,Contact,Direct,correspondence,Attachment,Size,accusations,articles,fathers,allegations,attitudes,appearances,decisions,authors,instances,evaluations,members,perceptions,definitions,methods,officers,assumptions,responses,denials,strategies,References,Crooks,Factors,Trends,legislation,months,variables,victimisation,spousal,perpetration,complainants,defendant

Some men kill their wives, others steal the children

 

Source: Autism Custody Battles

Statistics show that abusive men who kill their wives do so after they have been separated or divorce. What about statistics of men who emotionally kill their wives off by robbing them of the very children they carried and nurtured since birth? There must be a special name for this type of murderers and this morning I set out to find out just what they are called.

Post-separation violence can take many forms, including physical or sexual assault, threats of physical abuse, stalking, harassment, and threats related to taking custody of the children or refusing child support.

Wikipedia on Domestic Violence: “Clinicians should not relax their vigilance after a battered wife leaves her husband, because some data suggest that the period immediately following a marital separation is the period of greatest risk for the women. Many men will stalk and batter their wives in an effort to get them to return or punish them for leaving. Initial assessments of the potential for violence in a marriage can be supplemented by standardized interviews and questionnaires, which have been reliable and valid aids in exploring marital violence more systematically.”

Then there is the case of The Obsessed Abuser, Family Violence Prevention Fund www.endabuse.org “He may make threats to kill himself or her if she leaves him, asks for a separation or divorce. He often says, “If I can’t have you, no one will.” This behavior may persevere months or years after a separation. His criminal record can include violations of protective orders or situations where he has disturbed the peace as he pursues or harasses his partner. However, some of these men have clean records – only the partner knows about his jealousy and possessiveness.”

Spouse Murder and Separation Violence – Finally, I found the official terms for these behaviors.

Men like O.J. Simpson, think they are the abused spouses are very dangerous during separation and divorce. In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims. G.W. Bernard, H. Vera, M.I. Vera, and G. Newman, “Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10 (1982).

Bristol, CT Police Department  has compiled some data:
Men, who believe they are entitled to relationship with battered women or that they “own” their female partner, view women’s departure as an ultimate betrayal which justifies retaliation. (Saudners & Browne, 1990; Dutton, 1988; Bernard el at, 1982)

Evidence of the gravity of separation violence is overwhelming.

Husband threatening to declare wife insane and threatening to take the children away:

In the book  The batterer as parent: addressing the impact of domestic violence on familyIt is common for batterers to threaten to take children away from the battered woman by proving her to be an unfit mother (Doyne et al., 1999). Threatened or actual litigation regarding custody or visitation can become a critical avenue for the batterer to maintain control after separation (Shepard, cited in Straus 1995).

For this reason, some lawyers advise women not to tell courts or mediators about child abuse or domestic abuse because, by doing so, they risk losing custody to the alleged abuser (“Custody Litigation,” 1988; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004).

Message to Victims that you will often see posted says:

REMEMBER, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A CRIME.
IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
YOU CAN GET OUT OF THIS SITUATION.
YOU DESERVE BETTER.

Really? What can I do to get out this situation? You can only get out of it if you do something before this situation has exploded in your face.

In the News: Kimberly Smith was murdered in her Oconomowoc home Oct. 1 2009 during a custody battle.

WordPress Tags: Some,children,Source,Autism,Custody,Statistics,Post,separation,violence,threats,harassment,Wikipedia,Domestic,Clinicians,vigilance,wife,husband,data,period,greatest,Many,effort,Initial,marriage,Abuser,Prevention,Fund,behavior,orders,peace,records,jealousy,Spouse,Murder,Simpson,homicide,male,victims,Bernard,Vera,Newman,Till,Death,Part,Study,Bulletin,American,Academy,Psychiatry,Bristol,Police,Department,relationship,departure,betrayal,retaliation,Saudners,Browne,Dutton,Evidence,parent,impact,woman,Doyne,litigation,avenue,Shepard,Straus,courts,mediators,Saccuzzo,Johnson,Message,REMEMBER,CRIME,FAULT,SITUATION,DESERVE,BETTER,News,Smith,Oconomowoc,murderers,assessments,questionnaires,violations,situations,spouses,lawyers,women,batterer

THERE’S NOTHING FRIENDLY ABOUT ABUSE Children are at risk when custody cases rely on a meritless theory of parental “alienation”

THERE’S NOTHING FRIENDLY ABOUT ABUSE

FILED IN: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, BARRY GOLDSTEIN, BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD,CENTER FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES,CHILD RAPE, CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR FATHERS, CORRUPT CUSTODY EVALUATORS,CORRUPT PSYCHOLOGISTS, DR. RICHARD GARDNER, JOAN ZORZA, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, PAS,PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER, PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDERS, PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME,CUSTODY EVALUATIONS, PARENTAL ALIENATION

Here is an article from the current issue of Ms. Magazine, written by someone who gets it…Dr. R. Dianne Bartlow:

There’s Nothing Friendly About Abuse

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.

Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection

Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection

By Joan Dawson

Joan Dawson's blog

When do reproductive rights end? Do they end at birth? Do they continue throughout a child’s life? Do reproductive rights extend to parental rights? These are questions we are just starting to ask. And finding the answer can be, in many cases, the difference between life and death.

Most agree that women have a right to control their own bodies. However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women. And in cases where a woman then has children in an abusive setting, what are the woman’s reproductive rights and how do these intersect with her parental rights? Surely, charges of “failure to protect” can be used against her if she or the child is harmed. But what happens when women flee such relationships or try to deny abusive parents access to their children? Does either the judicial system or society support her in her efforts to protect her children? Do we believe her? Provide her with protection? Deny abusers access to children?

We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents  are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.

Approximately 100,000 contested child custody cases occur each year in the U.S. Two-thirds of these involve domestic violence, committed overwhelmingly (90 percent) by fathers, according to Harvard’s Jay Silverman, in a forward to the book Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody. Research finds that men who assault their wives are also likely to abuse their children. While we are likely to believe that the protective parent would gain custody, this is not often the case. In contested custody cases, men who seek custody get it up to 84 percent of the time. The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimates that approximately 58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent. What’s a mother to do to protect herself and her child?

Failure to protect

In a recent case our judicial system was tested and failed. Katie Tagle sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriendStephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child. She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The judge thought she was lying. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying…” And later, “Mr. Garcia claims it’s total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that “she used” to deny him access to his son. Even when she mentions the evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying…” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later they were both found dead.

If this were only an isolated case, it might end there. But it’s not.

Within two weeks of the Garcia-Tagle case, on February 8, 20-year-oldNicholas Bacon shot his nine-month-old son and then himself. Bacon had joint custody. 

Shortly after these two cases, 34-year-old Jesus Roman Fuentes shot his four-year-old son during a court-ordered visitation. The boy died at the hospital. The father, who had also shot himself, died this past week.

And following on these three cases, Mark Resch shot his seven-year-old son during a scheduled visitation and then committed suicide. The apparent motive was revenge against his estranged wife. In this case, the wife sought two orders of protection and police removed a gun from the household. Evidently, the family court judge still believed this man was a safe parent.

Mark A. Guenther was charged in the murder of his 18-month-old daughter this month. According to a commenter named Brokenhearten, who posted acomment on the news article:

Her mother tried and tried to get something done so that she did not have to go see her father. She had DFS out to his house, they found nothing...She filed for an order of protection on a couple different occassions...they were dismissed...She refused to let her see her dad until her back was up to the wall...the court systems had tied her hands and she had no other choices but to let her sweet baby go to her dads house and hope that everything was ok...

Once again, parental rights trumped safety and the system meant to protect children ignored the dangers identified by the mother.

Family court and fathers’ rights = A deadly combination

Historically, battered women have had problems retaining custody of their children. Mainly this was due to how they present; in a word, poorly. They cry, they’re frightened, they appear anxious and even hostile. Now add to this mix the Fathers’ Rights movement, a group referred to as anti-feminist, backlash and even, the “Abusers’ Lobby” and you have what amounts to a catastrophe, if not a deadly combination, for women and children. (In contrast, positive parenting or responsible fatherhood groups often work as allies with women.)

The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface -- but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.

In today’s courts with friendly parent policies, a battered woman will look anything but friendly. So who gets custody? The one who appears most likely to share parenting responsibilities. Often enough, the batterer.

Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.

Domestic violence experts also cringe at the idea of punishing false allegations, something the fathers’ rights groups actively promote. Since accusations of abuse can be difficult to prove – with evidence and witnesses – this can serve to punish parents for alleging abuse. Punishment deters reporting. Parents can be fined, jailed or denied custody if the judge doesn’t believe their accusation. Domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein says, "Research has established that fathers in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. It is not that men are more dishonest, but 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to pressure their partner to return or punish her for leaving. Although fathers are more likely to make false charges, courts are more likely to believe them.”

Parental alienation (PA) or parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the idea that a parent poisons the mind of the child(ren), is another idea introduced within the last two decades by fathers rights groups. Developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, PAS is highly controversial. Proponents claim parents (mostly mothers) turn their children against the other parent. Opponents claim PAS can mask child abuse. Indeed, research by Jay Silverman found 54 percent of cases with documented abuse were in favor of abusers. PAS was used in nearly every case.

In many of the cases I’ve cited, had the women tried to deny the fathers access to the children, they could’ve been countered with “alienation” or the judge could’ve immediately transferred custody over to the more “friendly” parent.

In a case stemming from November, for example, Danielle Horvat fled with her three-and-a-half-year-old boy, Garrett Aguilar on a day that she had a dispute with the boy’s father, David Aguilar. She stopped at one domestic violence shelter. Despite the fact that police did not investigate her claims of abuse, the court immediately transferred custody over to the father, as they often do when parents flee.

The incredible lightness of domestic violence

Thanks to the aid of the Internet, (mostly) men that make claims of being falsely accused or alienated find support, encouragement and targets for their anger -- which is aimed at their exes, or women in general and feminists in particular. Individuals and groups that promote studies referring to domestic violence as 50-50 or “mutual” also find supporters within this crowd. Many of these claims are based on studies that rely on self-reportage or pick up common couple violence. Their limitations include using self-report; not picking up severe violence or homicide; not putting violence into context (was it used for self-defense?); and not including violence during separation (the most dangerous time for a woman). What the promotion of these studies has done is introduce the element of doubt. If you combine this with women’s low credibility (due to societal bias and the biases of the legal system), you have danger.

Take the case of Timothy Frazier. In May 2009, Frazier convinced police his ex-girlfriend Candice Dempsey was a threat to their 21-month-old son. While Frazier made it very clear to police he did not have custody, police readily handed his son over to him. Two weeks later, both were found dead.

Even when the woman is believed, it is not often the father will have his parental rights terminated. Last year, Octavious Dupree Gilmore punched his ex-girlfriend in the head and threatened to kill her, their two kids and himself.  The Gaston Gazette reported him as saying, “"...(I)f I can't have you, nobody can," Gilmore allegedly told her. "I'll kill you, the kids, then myself." He was charged but later released. According to the article, he was told to "have no contact with the accuser outside of their child custody agreement," (emphasis mine). Despite an assault and death threats, the judge believed this man to be a safe parent.

In another case, charges of domestic violence were not given much weight, as they were not placed in context of the abuser’s history. Craig Alan Wall, Sr. was a suspect in his 5-week-old son’s death. He violated a protection order when he went to his son’s memorial. The prosecutor never mentioned that Wall was a suspect in his son’s case or that he had served a 14-year prison sentence for armed robbery. The judge released Wall on $1,000 bail. Two days later, he stabbed his ex-girlfriend (the child’s mother) to death. She was 29 and left behind a 6-year-old son.

Fathers rights do not trump women and children’s safety

In many of these cases, the women are doing what they are “supposed to do:” reporting domestic violence, filing orders of protection, using shelters, and so on. And yet, despite jumping all the hoops set up for them, in many of these cases, the system is failing them. The women in question are not finding justice for themselves or their children. As a result, we find women who feel forced to stay with an abuser or forced to share parenting rather than not be able to protect her children at all. These women are not “failing to protect,” but the judicial system is failing to protect them and their children from further harm, abuse and death. (For citations to research on women losing custody, see www.leadershipcouncil.org) [Note: organizations like Justice for Children do report men experiencing similar situations, but overwhelmingly we witness women facing this type of bias and injustice in family court.]

Many of the fathers rights guys think their reproductive rights extend to their parental rights. This should also be the case for women -- and, indeed, many mothers’ rights groups have sprung up in defense of these rights. So the question remains: When do our reproductive rights end? How can we we prevent women from losing custody of the very children they bear? How can we help them protect themselves and their children from harm? How can we help women receive justice in a judicial system that may not believe their claims and may actually punish them for making abuse allegations?  Fathers do have rights, no doubt, but their rights do not trump women and children’s safety. That is the balance -- the justice -- that we must seek -- and it’s a matter of life and death that we do so soon.