Friday, July 27, 2012

Bias Against Abused Mothers in Child Custody Cases: Report New study finds systemic problems in parental capacity assessments discriminate against women.

 

New study finds systemic problems in parental capacity assessments discriminate against women.

Mother holding child

Increasingly, women who claim spousal abuse are labeled ‘alienating’. Photo: Shutterstock .

When a woman flees an abusive relationship, we expect the justice system will protect her and her children.

But a new report finds in some British Columbian child custody cases allegations of spousal abuse are used to paint the mother as mentally ill or an "alienating" parent, and instead recommend visitation, or even custody, for the abusive parent.

"Troubling Assessments: Custody and Access Reports and their Equality Implications for BC Women " is a new report released today by West Coast LEAF, a women's legal education and advocacy organization. The report looks at what are known under the Family Relations Act as Section 15 reports: parental capacity assessments conducted during child custody and access cases.

Often a useful tool for getting a third-party, outsider's view of parenting abilities, the report found they could also be biased against and dangerous for vulnerable women with abusive ex-partners.

While there are specific guidelines to follow for family counsellors and social workers regarding family violence and the use of these reports, psychologists in B.C. have no such criteria. In addition, judges often take assessors' advice at face value, and limited access to legal aid in B.C. prevents many women from challenging assessments they view as biased.

"West Coast LEAF believes that women's equality is not served by the regime governing custody and access reports as it currently stands," reads the report.

"A rights-respecting system of family law -- one that promotes best outcomes for children and families -- must invest in women's equality. Addressing these concerns and implementing reforms will bring us one step closer to this critical goal."

'Alienating mothers'

Women have been contacting West Coast LEAF for years hoping they could help them with bad Section 15 reports. In the last two years the organization began researching the issue.

They interviewed judges, lawyers, psychologists and social workers, and held forums with women who've undergone Section 15 assessments as part of their own child custody battles. The result is this report.

The report doesn’t deal in numbers -- either the number of women affected by bad assessments or the cost of the changes to the family law system they request. But Kasari Govender, West Coast LEAF executive director, said the issue isn't the numbers but the fact the assessments are so easily misused.

"The key is the systemic concerns we have: the lack of training for some assessors on the dynamics of violence, specifically violence against women and violence within intimate relationships, (and) cultural diversity and judging parental ability across cultural divides and the problems that can arise there."

Assessments are often used at the request of one parent in the hopes of discrediting the other, although judges often request them too. In British Columbia there are no common accepted guidelines or professional qualifications for conducting these assessments. However BC Supreme Court usually requires a psychologist conduct the assessments, while the lower courts use family justice counsellors.

Family justice counsellors and social workers must adhere to specific professional guidelines for completing Section 15 assessments, including taking family violence into account. But there are no such guidelines or specifications for psychologists.

Allan Wade, a therapist and internationally renowned expert on inter-personal violence, said he's seen a range of Section 15 assessments, from the very good to very bad.

"I've seen a number of cases over the years where the reports are so prejudiced and so incompetent that they're extremely harmful," he told The Tyee.

For example, Wade said he's seeing an increase in assessors labelling mothers who allege spousal abuse as "alienating."

"There are women in B.C. who want to report abuse to the authorities who are told by their lawyers 'Don't report the abuse. If you do, you'll lose your kids,' because they'll be called alienating mothers," said Wade, who is quoted in the West Coast LEAF report.

While some reports show their biases -- one example given to The Tyee was an assessor who continually makes negative remarks about parents who live in subsidized housing -- Wade said the bigger issue is the use of psychological personality tests for parents and children.

For example, when tests such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) are given to people under chronic stress, like victims of abuse or individuals in chronic pain, Wade said research has shown results are skewed.

"Unless the person giving the test understands that and accounts for that in their interpretation, they're at risk of wrongly attributing a mental illness to the victim, and I've seen that happen in a number of cases," he said.

"Many of the assessment devices that are used routinely in psychology are not particularly suited to addressing problems with violence."

Lost in translation

Psychological tests and Section 15 assessments also discriminate against women from different cultural backgrounds or for whom English is not their first language. The report found some psychologists refuse to offer psychological tests in languages other than English over fears it would skew the results. Translators are sometimes used instead to translate the questions and answers for the women.

The report alleges mothers have been judged harshly for their differing parenting styles, citing a mother who read her daughter stories in Farsi, and a South-Asian mother who couldn't afford a two-bedroom apartment, so she shared a bed with her young child. Normal practices in their home country, but used to paint them as bad parents in Canada.

There is little recourse for women who don't want to be assessed or want to challenge an assessment. Wade said informed consent is the right of parents, male or female, who are subject to a parental capacity assessment. But that right isn't recognized in B.C.

"In one case a woman consulted me because she was having a Section 15 report done, and she wanted to know what she should know in advance," he recalled.

"(I) provided her with a list of questions and she tried to ask the professional, and the person said 'Look, I don't have to answer your questions, I have a court order.' Then she had every reason to believe she wouldn't be safe because of the professional presentation of the (assessor)."

Access to lawyers to challenge assessments can also be difficult. In B.C. a single mother with one child must make less than $2,050 per month to qualify for legal aid. But a salary of $25,000 doesn’t leave enough discretionary spending to hire a lawyer to fight the report, either. Thus the report calls for increases to the limits for legal aid, too.

But it shouldn't just be up to lawyers to fight against individual reports, said forensic social worker Tracey Young, who is also quoted in the report. There should be province-wide oversight of reports to ensure parents -- both male and female -- are treated fairly by these assessments.

"There really is nobody monitoring or keeping track of this," said Young, who worked in child welfare from 2002 to 2009.

"I think that was one of the really important parts that came out of the report, is I think that there's not consistency across the board, there's no set of practice guidelines for whichever clinicians are doing this."

Psychologists underrepresented in report

While West Coast LEAF maintains the report is meant to highlight problems with the justice system overall, there is plenty of criticism for the lack of guidelines for psychologists. Although they sent out questionnaires to 15 psychologists randomly selected from the B.C. Psychological Association's website, only three responded.

Attempts to reach the B.C. College of Psychologists were difficult, too, with both sides saying miscommunication led to the college not participating in the report. The report's release was subsequently delayed by one week to provide the college time to review the findings.

But in a statement emailed to The Tyee, a spokesperson for the college said ultimately the two organizations respectfully agreed to disagree on the findings.

"The report does not comprehensively examine the existing nature and the quality of the education and training required of registered psychologists in British Columbia, the professional standards relevant to the preparation of Section 15 reports by registered psychologists, and the accessibility and efficacy of the College complaints process," read the statement.

"In addition, while the report provides insight into the experiences of some participants in custody and access proceedings, it does not provide a systematic analysis of the issues raised."

Both parties have agreed to keep lines of communication open and vowed to continue working on solving the issues outlined in the report.

In the meantime, the days of the Family Relations Act are numbered. With the new Family Law Act replacing the previous legislation over the next six months to a year, it's an ideal time to make changes to the laws surrounding parental assessments.

The new section outlining rules for parental capacity assessments, Section 211, isn't much different than Section 15. But there's still time to make changes, and in an emailed statement to The Tyee, B.C. Attorney General Shirley Bond said she would take the report's recommendations into consideration.

"As with any report that we receive, we will take the time to review their findings," read the statement.

"We will take the report’s recommendations under consideration as we move forward with implementation of the new Family Law Act."

Govender is hopeful government will adopt the report's recommendations regardless of the time or financial costs to government.

"I think it's really significant not to get caught up in looking at changes in family law in only the short-term costs, because we know that where better outcomes happen for children and for families, that that will ultimately save the system significant amounts of money," says Govender.

Friday, July 13, 2012

KS: Child Custody Case Managers, ONE of the Most Scrutinized in the Judiciary - Appointed to "high-conflict" divorces - KS Legislature and KS Court of Appeals, taking steps to ‘Rein In’ the “Quasi-Judicial” RENEGADE appointees

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-07-09/courts-working-guidelines-case-managers#comment-596328

Excellent article by Andy Marso and the Topeka capital Journal. You have to go to the article and read the comments.

Family Court The Real Weapon of Mass Destruction

Courts working on guidelines for case managers

Excerpts:

“mediation and other alternative dispute resolution in the Kansas court system says it will seek public comment soon on new guidelines for child custody case managers, who are fast becoming one of the most scrutinized aspects of the judiciary.”

“public comments on case management could be solicited as soon as this summer and the comment period should last months”

“followed by appellate court decisions in back-to-back weeks that slapped the Douglas County district court for abdicating too much of its authority in custody cases to the case manager.”

“Two weeks ago, the appellate court found that Karen Williams was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on the district court's decision to reverse custody of her daughter — a decision that was made solely on the recommendation of case manager Cheryl Powers.”

“The latest appellate decision, released Friday, established that father Matthew Merrill had the right to object to all recommendations of his case manager, Patrick Nichols, and that the judge should review those objections before implementing the recommendations.”

“Bud Dale, a Topeka-based lawyer and case manager, agreed, and said he also thought the appellate judges went too far in limiting case management fees.”

“Dale objected to the judges' ruling that Nichols shouldn’t have been able to bill Merrill for the time Nichols spent defending himself against motions to remove him as case manager. Instead, the court wrote that case managers are only authorized to asses fees to the parties for work related to "custody, residency or visitation or parenting time issues."

"(The court) muddied some waters here," Dale said. "I'm not in indentured service to the court. I'm not working for nothing."

“In the Merrill case, the appellate court also found Nichols was inappropriately influenced by the parties' unwillingness to pay him and the district judge erred in accepting Nichols' request that his recommendations be immediately implemented as court orders”

Read rest of article here: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-07-09/courts-working-guidelines-case-managers#comment-596328

My comment:

Blood for Profit - Just US, no one else. After 18 years of hell in Shawnee County Courts, Case management, GAL’s, parent coordinators and other 3rd party 'access to justice interferer’s’, have shown their true agenda - theirs -

and the commenter' s here are 'on to them' and the whole 'therapeutic jurisprudence' – b.s. w 2 degrees. Dr. Bud Dale, JD. Your ‘gravy train’ (and all the others) is finally at stake.

Awesome job to cj and Andy Marso, more than awesome job that after all these years I finally see the people – we the people – outraged! I have waited almost two decades for the truth to finally burst out. Thank you Topeka.

LAW is LAW - psych is theory, ideas, opinion. Not fact. There is absolutely no place in a Court of Law for any ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ – Self (financially) ‘made-up' positions that amount to ‘crystal ball’ reading’s. Take it on the road w the carnival. Entertainment [bad entertainment] is better than the damage caused by your so called JUDGE/GOD idea, opinions and your beliefs. People divorce for a reason - stupidity, danger and insanity in forcing them into polar situations for financial gain is inhumane.

Dr. Bud Dale states …

…."(The court) muddied some waters here," Dale said. "I'm not in indentured service to the court. I'm not working for nothing."

Indentured slave? Case managers and other www.WhoresOfTheCourt.comhave no problem ‘enslaving’ families for personal profit... get out Bud.

Reevaluating the Evaluators: Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Bud Dale Does Case Management:

“Teaching Battered Mother to NOT complain about abuse, if she ever wanted to see her child again.'’ Mother never did see her child, she was never allowed to mother her daughter and a little girl denied her mother - 15 years later-- still no more than strangers, thanks KS Case Mangers, Courts and Bud Dale. $$ -
You murdered innocence, you rewarded violence -- An entire generation sent to slaughter for your personal $$ gain.

See Kansas case leads Petition To Inter American Commission On Human Rights http://bit.ly/b0EgEQ
Yes, that’s me, just another ‘high conflict’ case that case managers made careers out of.

--Dr. Dale Case Manager Report to Court in the Claudine Dombrowski Case;

“…..forcing a battered mother to not complain about sexual and physical abuse - it’s confrontational, and if mommy wants to see child again……then mommy will do as told.” http://bit.ly/JT

Karma baby. The ultimate justice. And they all came tumbling down....

Sunday, July 1, 2012

KS Appeals Court: ‘Mother entitled to full custody hearing’ – After Case Manager reverses Child Custody from Mother to Father…..Ya think? Really? In a Court of Law? Damn this just gets more and more interesting all the time……

“The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.”

Related: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-06-22/case-manager-oversight-still-murky

535741_10151029576230229_198466402_n

I cried when I heard the news below, for many reasons.

 

1. I always think of my daughter Rikki, had this been law would it have changed what happened to her and I? For 6 years we fought for a hearing after a now JUDGE, LLOYD C. SWARTZ (had been case manager) severed all contact between this mother and her child. It was not until 2010 that there was finally a hearing on it – SIX years later, although for 6 years this mother wrote motion after motion for hearing….. judge after judge it went through, never to be heard, never any of the basic fundamental rights of ‘due process’…..

And; when that hearing did finally come, the GAL (M. Jill Dykes) with the court appointed ‘psychs’ (David C. Rodeheffer) had taken over where the case manager (Lloyd C. Swartz) had left off….

Justice still remained denied, mother and daughter remained without contact as the abuser father (Hal Richardson) maintained complete control.

2. Even though, there will now be ‘hearings’ on the perversion of    justice - (where again - none should be) - the ‘house of gold’ has become brighter by other profiteers such as BUD DALE – GAL’s and other third party access to justice interferers.

I cry. Nothing has changed except for the Increase in profits from the other child traffickers.

There will only be Justice – when Justice is allowed. There can never be justice, when Therapeutic Jurisprudence is allowed.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Trial Within a Trial http://bit.ly/a2yslz

 

The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.

##

KS Appeals Court: Mother entitled to full custody hearing. Lower court had reversed custody on case manager's recommendation

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-06-29/appeals-court-mother-entitled-full-custody-hearing

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a mother who lost residential custody of her child based on a case manager's recommendation is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing.

Karen Williams, formerly Karen Wray, became an outspoken proponent of the need to reform the state's child custody case management system after the lower court limited her to once-a-week visits with her daughter without giving Williams an opportunity to hear and respond to the case manager's recommendation.

In a decision written by Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, the three appeals judges noted that the laws establishing case management do not explicitly require a hearing on case manager recommendations, but parents have a right to due process under the 14th Amendment when a fundamental liberty like the custody of their children is at stake.

"Although this holding may result in courts having busier dockets," the decision states, "the information received at such a hearing will aid the courts in deciding whether the case manager's recommendations are in the best interests of the child and insure that due process, one of the most sacred and essential constitutional guarantees, is provided to the parties."

The three appeals court judges found that case manager recommendations that change legal custody or residential custody, or significantly change parenting time warrant a full hearing if they are contested.

"The court of appeals nailed it," said Bud Dale a Topeka lawyer and case manager who submitted an amicus brief in the case. "In terms of the clarifications needed in the law to function as a case manager, the court of appeals decision was perfect."

The judges sent Williams' case back to the Douglas County court where it originated for a full hearing.

Williams called the decision "such a relief," though she said she was disappointed the appeals court did not grant her request to remove the case manager and district court judge who appointed her. Williams may face the same judge when she has her hearing in Douglas County, but she said she's confident she can regain residential custody of her daughter.

"I know that once we're allowed to present evidence, there's no way you can look at this and say that what has happened is righteous and fair," Williams said. "That's what I wanted is to be given the opportunity to present it and they're giving us that opportunity."

The Legislature authorized the judicial branch to appoint case managers to negotiate visitation in "high-conflict" divorces a little more than a decade ago. Since then, parents and lawyers have expressed concern that case managers have broad authority and little accountability.

Ron Nelson, a Lenexa family law attorney who represented one of the parties in a similar case that went to the appeals court in 2000, called Friday's ruling "a very good decision." Nelson said it goes farther than any previous ruling in establishing that the court is the final authority on child custody changes, not the court-appointed case manager.

"This decision certainly pulls back from what seemed to be the way that case management approvals were going," Nelson said. "Which was that they were rubber-stamped, either in a hearing or out of a hearing."

Williams says that's what happened in her case.

Williams' daughter was born in 2001, and she filed for divorce from the girl's father a year later. The two retained joint legal custody, but Williams had residential custody and her ex-husband had weekly visits. That arrangement held until February 2011, when Williams told the case manager, Cheryl Powers, that she was remarrying and moving to Marion.

In response, Powers recommended that the court reverse the custody arrangement. According to the court decision, Powers believed Williams had a history of alienating her daughter from the child's father and "this alienation would only increase if she were allowed to move away with the child."

Within a month, the court adopted Powers' recommendation and denied Williams' request for a full hearing. The court also ignored Williams' request that it remove Powers as case manager and appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.

That led Williams to appeal to the higher court, which was unusually caustic in its evaluation of Powers' response to Williams' request for her removal.

"The tone and content of Powers' subsequent response to Wray's objection can hardly be described as a professional report from a neutral factfinder or facilitator," the judges wrote.

"You don't see that kind of language very often," Nelson said. "Saying it's essentially an unprofessional recommendation and reaction is kind of strong language."

The Legislature moved to address some of the concerns about case managers last session by requiring they hold a professional license. But legislators decided to wait and see how the court would rule in Williams' case before taking further action.

Dale said he will propose a minor procedural fix next session, but the court addressed most of his concerns. Nelson said there's still work for legislators to do.

"This (decision) certainly helps and provides some solace that case management is not quite the railroading it's been perceived to be," Nelson said. "But there still needs to be more standards and more direction from the Legislature than this opinion really gives."

Monday, June 11, 2012

VAWA - Title II - The Entire MISSING Section of the VAWA Identifying Use of PAS Legal Strategies as Violence Against Women Which Endangers Children

Courtesy American Mothers Political Party

childrensrightsstoptheabuse

Please Contact Your Legislatures; And Send To Them A Copy of the Deleted VAWA - Title 2 - Section of the VAWA Identifying Use of PAS Legal Strategies as Violence Against Women Which Endangers Children; and The Passed Resolution 2466 that supports the intent of  Protecting Women and Children in the deleted Section.

I had posted this 'exact' title and  information in a 'note' on facebook Friday. By Sunday night - the Abusers lobby had the 'Note' - removed for "Abusiveness". I kid you not,screenshot here. I just did a search within face book as the note was shared all over the place and the entire FB site has been scrubbed, literally. Only external links outside of FB and those links are not making it into the FB servers.

Contact Information and download links:

Packet to Send to Legislatures:

###

Question:

What happened to the entire section of the VAWA addressing PAS (essentially identifying use of PAS legal strategies as violence against women which endangers children)?

Answer:

THAT is the question that NOBODY is willing to answer, not even the Administration which includes the main person who originally introduced VAWA. Read the resolution I posted, that is what prompted me to get Fairfax, CA to enact Resoluton 2466.

I seem to have been the first person in the country, that is other than the legislators who introduced VAWA, American Psychological Association Task Force members (Yes, the APAORIGINALLY did condemn PAS) and Father Rights Lobby (Why do you think they are so against the VAWA -- it would have sent all of these psychos and f^*^s to prison), to have identified this. But, all of the so-called advocates were so busy furthering their own agendas -- and lining their own pockets.
(Answered by Cindy Ross - a special thanks)

###

Fairfax Praised and Commended For Efforts Toward Ensuring That Domestic And Child Abuse Cases Are Adjudicated Properly and Applauds The Historic Step Taken by the Fairfax Town Council toward Eliminating The Systematic Abuse of Women and Children.

On Dec. 6, the Fairfax Town Council passed a resolution calling for revision of California family code and the federal Violence Against Women Act, and resolving that the Town Council joins the National Organization for Women in denouncing the use of the "parental alienation syndrome" legal strategy.
Parental alienation syndrome, originally crafted as a legal defense of child molesters, is routinely used in family court to mishandle domestic and child abuse cases as custody disputes and to punish mothers and children reporting abuse.

Use of parental alienation syndrome underlies not only egregious child custody rulings - especially custody switches to batterers and child molesters - and family court related misconduct, but the misuse of government programs and funding. In 2003, the American Prosecutors Research Institute identified parental alienation syndrome as the means to obstruct prosecution of abuse cases.
On behalf of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, I would like to thank Councilman Lew Tremaine for sponsoring and the entire Fairfax Town Council for voting to adopt Resolution 2466. Our group, joined by supporters from California NOW, California Protective Parents Association and court reform activists and concerned citizens from Marin and across the country, commends the effort toward ensuring that domestic and child abuse cases are adjudicated properly and applauds the historic step taken by the Fairfax Town Council toward eliminating the systematic abuse of women and children.

More:

See a compilation of these and more like them in a collection here:  VAWA, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Fathers Rights

VAWA Title II Section of the VAWA Identifying Use of PAS Legal Strategies as Violence Against Women Which Endangers Children

The Entire Deleted Section here. LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN 

Abusers, Abusers Rights, Democrats, Endangers Children, Fatherhood, HHS, Joe Biden Legal Violence Against Women, Missing Section, Obama, PA, PACA, PAD, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS, Pedophiles, Republicans, Title Two, VAWA, Shared Parenting, Family Rights,Pedophile,

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Kansas Court of Appeals To Hear a Child Custody Case Involving The Role of Case Managers (and other 3rd party interferers) in Child Custody Matters.

“Therapeutic Jurisprudence - The sociological and psychological research on families and child well-being impacts public policy and the issues of child custody in family law. The research frequently is misrepresented, and mis-cited by mental health professionals, lawyers, forensic psychologists and others, as well as interest groups lobbying for laws. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Case Managers, Guardians ad Litem; Parenting Coordinators; Custody Evaluators, etc. the various forms of so-called ADR (alternate dispute resolution) practitioners, such as GALs, parenting coordinators, parenting evaluators, forensic psychologists, recommending mediators, special masters, court-ordered therapists, other court-appointed mental health professionals, supervised visitation centers, and other profiteers of "therapeutic jurisprudence", whose methods involve -- intrusion and coercion under the threat of court sanctions, and actual or de facto extra-judicial decision-making, which have multiple things wrong with them, not the least of which is denigration of due process, and the diminution of a publicly observable, regulated, and appealable "rule by law" by substituting the caprice of men and women.

These practices have been promoted as "cures" for ailings of the court system and the litigants in it by self-serving persons who apparently are ignorant, or else just do not care about the harms they cause to children and their parents because they make money from the ideas they promote, churning profit in proceedings that fly in the face of the foundations of our justice system. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Also; the majority of 'high conflict' divorce case's are Domestic Violence and or Abusive. Good parents 90% of them never have to go through the above, it is the 10 % the abusive ones or aka "High Conflict" that the above make their living on. Return the Judge back to the Court room, get rid of the non factual 'opinion and belief' of third party $ hand outs who block access to Justice/ e.g. the Judge.”

 

Kansas Court to Consider Case Manager Custody Case Appeal

TOPEKA — The Kansas Court of Appeals is set to hear a child custody case next month that addresses the role of case managers in custody matters in the state.

The case, which is scheduled for a May 15 hearing before the appeals court, involves Karen Williams, who lost full custody of her child in March 2011 after a case manager recommended to the judge that custody go to the child's father. Williams said the decision to separate her from her daughter was made based on confidential conversations between the judge and the case manager.

Williams and her attorney argue that she has a constitutional right to a hearing in which the case manager must present the evidence to back up her custody recommendation and allow Williams to respond to it, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported Monday.

"I've not been allowed due process, and I want a day in court," Williams said.

In Kansas, case managers, who work with parents in "high-conflict" relationships on their visitation schedules and custody, are appointed by judges and aren't required to have a professional license.

"The only qualification currently is that a judge appoints them," said Ron Nelson, a Lenexa lawyer who specializes in family law.

Nelson said the use of case managers has been authorized for about 10 years, and concerns about them overstepping their bounds have mounted due to a lack of clear guidelines about their responsibilities and authority. He said the case management concerns are about non-judicial officers making custody decisions that should be the purview of the courts. .

The Legislature is also considering a bill requiring specific qualifications for case managers. It would restrict judges to appointing only licensed psychologists, psychotherapists, counselors, therapists, social workers or lawyers.

Rep. Joe Patton, R-Topeka, a lawyer who serves on the judiciary conference committee, said he has "mixed feelings" about the bill.

"It's certainly very important to have someone qualified," he said. "It's very possible someone can be qualified without a particular license, but as a general rule we want someone qualified."

Cheryl Powers, the case manager on Williams' case, declined to comment on the Williams brief with the hearing pending. But she said she believes the backlash against case managers is coming from a group of disgruntled lawyers.

"There are certain attorneys that are less than happy with the fact that some of us have quasi-judicial powers without a license," she said. "They're attorneys and don't have that much power. They are not happy with that."

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

Entire article follows below the excerpts or read here

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High rates of domestic violence exist in families referred for child custody evaluations. These evaluations can produce potentially harmful outcomes, including the custody of children being awarded to a violent parent, unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation between violent parents and their children, and mediation sessions that increase danger to domestic violence victims. Past research shows that domestic violence is frequently undetected in custody cases or ignored as a significant factor in custody-visitation determinations. Previous research also indicates that violence—and its harmful effects on victims and children—often continues or increases after separation.

Today the family law arena is increasingly identified as needing reform to protect battered women and their children (Goodmark, 2011). Research has documented the ongoing and sometimes escalating dangers faced by victims and their children after they leave violent relationships. Homicidal threats, stalking, and harassment affect as many as 25 to 35 percent of survivors who have left a violent relationship (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes,2000a). In addition, as many as one fourth of battered women report their ex-partners threatened to hurt or kidnap their children (e.g., Liss & Stahly, 1993). Many abusers also use the legal system to maintain contact with and harass their ex-partners (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).

Domestic abuse survivors and their children may experience serious harm as a result of family court decisions. Offenders may be able to continue their abuse of their ex-partners and children due to unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation arrangements (Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Radford & Hester, 2006); sole or joint custody of children may be awarded to a violent or potentially violent parent rather than a non-violent one; and mediation may be recommended or mandated in a way that compromises victims’ rights or places them in more danger. Tragically, in some cases post-separation contacts end in the homicide of a mother and/or her children.(Saunders, 2009; Sheeran & Hampton, 1999). Ironically, battered mothers’ attempts to protect their children may be used against them in custody and visitation decisions.

One widely cited educational booklet from the American Judges Association states that, “studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases” (American Judges Association, n.d., p. 5)

Gender Bias in the Courts

Battered women are at higher risk of negative custody-visitation outcomes due to gender bias by courts, as documented by many federal, state, and local commissions that have studied such bias since the 1980s (e.g., Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Czapanskiy, 1993; Danforth & Welling, 1996; Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2003; Zorza, 1996)4. Negative stereotypes about women seem to encourage judges to disbelieve women’s allegations about child abuse (Danforth & Welling, 1996; Zorza, 1996). A lack of understanding about domestic violence also leads judges to accuse victims of lying, blaming victims for the violence, and trivializing the violence (Abrams & Greaney, 1989;Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias, 1989).

Gender bias is frequently uncovered in custody disputes (Rosen & Etlin, 1996) and often leads to mistrust of women—in particular to the belief that they make false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence. Dragiewicz (2010) provides a comprehensive summary of gender bias reports pertaining to custody decisions. In addition to the tendency to disbelieve or minimize women’s reports of abuse, or to disregard evidence for it, Dragiewicz also describes other problems uncovered during investigations. These include mothers being punished for reporting abuse.

Half of men who batter also physically abuse their children (Straus, 1983.

Beliefs About False Allegations of Domestic Violence in Relation to Other Beliefs and Recommendations

Among evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence are usually false was part of a constellation of beliefs, including beliefs that false allegations of child abuse and parental alienation by DV survivors are common. DV educators need to provide accurate information on: the rates and nature of false allegations and alienation; the ways in which survivors are reluctant to co-parent out of fear of future harm; the mental health consequences of DV; and the importance of understanding coercive-controlling forms of violence. In addition, the significant relationships between beliefs about custody and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice, and social dominance suggest links to deeper values. Professional educators can use value awareness exercises that may help change beliefs and behavior. These recommendations apply to judges as well, since their beliefs about DV and custody were significantly related to the outcomes recommended in the case vignette.

Friendly Parent Statutes

The friendly-parent standard works against survivors because any concerns they voice about father-child contact or safety for themselves are usually interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Zorza, 1996).

Survivors are therefore placed in a no-win situation: If they do not report abuse, then protections for them and solid grounds for custody are not available; yet reporting the abuse may be viewed as raising false allegations in order to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (Dore, 2004). Research shows that parents who raise concerns about child sexual abuse can be severely sanctioned for doing so (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). The sanctions include loss of custody to the alleged offender, restricted visitation, and court orders not to report further abuse or take the child to a therapist (Faller & DeVoe, 1995; Neustein & Goetting, 1999; Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Voices of Women, 2008). In practice, friendly-parent provisions, together with statutes presuming joint custody, tend to override presumptions against awarding joint legal custody with the abuser (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005).

Further compounding victims’ experiences are contradictory messages from criminal courts, family courts, child protection investigations, and visitation services (Hester, 2009). For example, criminal courts support victims’ testimony about the abuse, but in family court the same testimony might be interpreted as non-cooperation. To overcome these inconsistencies some states have introduced integrated DV courts (Aldrich & Kluger, 2010).

Labeling Survivors as “Alienating Parents”

Similar to the emphasis on cooperative parenting, use of the label “parent-alienation syndrome” (Gardner, 1998) or, more recently, “parental-alienation disorder” (Bernet, 2008; Bernet, von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010) can also place battered women in a no-win situation.

Battered mothers are vulnerable to these labels when they make formal child abuse allegations or raise concerns about the possible abuse of the children by an ex-partner. Many child abuse professionals believe that mothers coach their children to make false allegations in contested custody disputes (Faller, 2007).

Practitioners who apply parent-alienation syndrome (PAS) or parent-alienation disorder formulations tend to automatically label a parent as an “alienator” without a thorough investigation of the allegations (Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2000; Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2001; Meier, 2009). As a result, battered mothers may be viewed as both pathological and abusive.

Fathers’ Rights Groups

The influence of fathers’ rights groups on evaluators and judges is unclear outside of anecdotal accounts (Kurth, 2010). Some types of groups lobby for the presumption of joint custody and co-parenting and doubt the validity of most domestic violence allegations(Dragiewicz, 2008;Williams, Boggess, & Carter, 2004). For example, the National Fathers’ Resource Center (NFRC), along with Fathers for Equal Rights, “demands that society acknowledge that false claims of Domestic Violence are used to gain unfair advantages in custody and divorce cases” (NFRC, 2006). They further state:

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. . . . Simply stated, women know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence accusation (NFRC, 2006).

Underlying the patriarchal beliefs and victim blaming are likely to be deeper, “core” beliefs (i.e. general, value-laden beliefs) about justice and equality. For example, the belief that the world is basically a just place has been related to various forms of victim blaming or denigration. It asserts that good things can happen only to good people and bad things can happen only to bad people (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). Likewise, holding a basic belief that hierarchies are an inherent part of society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and having inequality as a core value (Ball-Rokeach, 1976) are related to beliefs supporting gender inequality. 

In 2007, ten mothers and a victimized child (now an adult) and national and state organizations filed suit against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They claimed that the human rights of abused mothers and children were not protected because custody was awarded to abusers and child molesters (Klein, 2007).

 

 

Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Los Angeles County DCFS Child Social Workers violating Laws - Philip L. Browning Los Angeles County Children and Family Services

Another PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) Scandal.This came from a grandfather seeking help for his daughter and grand-daughter. Please scroll down to read the letter sent to all major media and the DA who refuses to protect a child from her pedophile father. DCFS et el --Google your names now, you have been exposed. California Highway Patrol Report

 

Morning,

I just want to share with you the problems our daughter and granddaughter are having with Los Angeles County DCFS.  On Sunday April 1 at 7:00 pm I will be on Straight Talk with John Narzarin (link http://www.straighttalkwithjohnjnazarian.com/ )I will be discussing the problems with Professional monitor Phyllis Block and DCFS violating policies, procedures, court orders,etc and continue to do so with no regards to our granddaughter's safety and health.

I myself never thought this could happen to my family, but here we are fighting to save our granddaughter who was raped by her father Jason Moncibais.  Our granddaughter continues to be molested and abused by Jason's father Sal Moncibais and his wife Margaret (Killeen) Moncibais and DCFS is not doing anything to stop it.  In fact, they charged my daughter for emotional abuse, fabricated lies and had the judge drop the molestation charges against the father and asked for custody to be switched to the child abuser and molester father.  This is totally sick minded people and my tax dollar is paying for DCFS to punish my daughter and granddaughter...just sick

I have also attached an email sent to Philip Browning who is suppose to be in charge of LA County DCFS, but I believe he is just window dressing,   Hopefully the file won't be too big for most of you, where I will find a bunch of return emails.

Rick Perez

Reseda, CA 91335

818-825-1953

BCC to other moms and advocates


---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: "Rick" <rperez@wmelab.com>
To: pinquiries@dcfs.lacounty.gov, pbrowning@childsupport.co.la.ca.us, finkld@dcfs.lacounty.gov, lmandel@bos.lacounty.gov, mayor@lacity.com,
Cc: staff@talkamerica.com,terry@catholicradio.com,timmer@premrad.com,tommartin@worldradio.org,tommydouglas@pgatourradio.com,troman@theprovider.com,weber@swnetworks.com,world@flpradio.com,wrestrepo@radiounica.com,yourtwc@mindspring.com,48hours@cbsnews.com,60m@cbsnews.com,abenitez@univision.net,accuracy@usatoday.com, betsy.fischer@nbc.com,brianhill@metronetworks.com,browne@foxnews.com,cochs@ap.org,comments@www.lifetimetv.com,danschiedel@kozk.pbs.org,dateline@nbcuni.com,dibella@foxnews.com,diefenbach@foxnews.com,dij@cbsnews.com,dmedrano@telemundo.com,earlyshow@cbs.com,ElRushbo@eibnet.com,evaldez@univision.net,evening@cbsnews.com,fair@fair.org, Foxreport@foxnews.com,frontlineworld@flworld.org,ftn@cbsnews.com,gil.pimentel@abc.com,GlennBeck@foxnews.com,gramshaw@newshour.org,hannity@foxnews.com,info@ap.org,info@cnbc.com,jcohen@bloomberg.net,jonathan.wald@nbc.com,letters@usnews.com,letters@washpost.com,lisa.hsia@nbc.com,lmn@mylifetime.com,mail@uttm.com,mark.nelson@abc.com, maureensm@ffww.com,mcurtis@njn.org,meredith.white@abc.com,metro@sfchronicle.com,mimi.gurbst@abc.com,muriel.pearson@abc.com,newseditors@wsj.com,news-tips@nytimes.com,newstips@upi.org,nightly@nbc.com,nytnews@nytimes.com,ombudsman@washpost.com,onlineda@newshour.orgg,ontherecord@foxnews.com,oreilly@foxnews.com,penny.britell@abc.com, phil.boyce@citcomm.com,pjh@cbsnews.com,plorris@univision.net,pls@cbsnews.com,readers.representative@latimes.com,realitycheck@cbsnews.com,rod.prince@nbc.com,rvizcon@telemundo.com,sharon.newman@abc.com,sheberer@pbs.org,special@foxnews.com,stella.dawson@reuters.com,steve.majors@nbc.com,stu.schutzman@abc.com,sundays@cbsnews.com, susan.dutcher@nbc.com,thismorning@cbsnews.com,today@nbc.com,tom.lea@nbc.com,virginia.moseley@abc.com,webmail@lifetimetv.com wsj.ltrs@wsj.com,wsjcontact@dowjones.com,WT@nbc.com,acsok@gol.com,admin@ltembassyus.org,aitarc@mail.ait.org.tw,albertod@intr.net,ambadane@erols.com,Ambassador@roembus.org,amembusadm@msn.com, angola@angola.org,ask@israelemb.org,azerbaijan@tidalwave.net,bulgaria@access.digex.net,cambemb@hotmail.com,cbartoli@elsalvador.org,Claire.Sambrook@ukrep.mail.fco.gov.uk,congenny@AOL.com,croatia@mail.idt.net,cubaseccion@igc.apc.org,Cultural@roembus.org,cvefont@sysnet.net,DCM@roembus.org,ecfin-info@cec.eu.int,Education@roembus.org, emb@uzbekistan.org,Embaguat@sysnet.net,embalgus@cais.com,embanic_usa@amdyne.net,embassy@costarica.com,embassy@haiti.org,Embassy@kyrgyzstan.org,embassy@moldova.org,embavene@dgsys.com,embdomrepusa@msn.com,Embofbih@aol.com,embpol@dgs.dgsys.com,emjam@sysnet.net,esa@un.org,ethiopia@tidalwave.net,fijiemb@earthlink.net, gamembdc@gambia.com,ge-embus@ix.netcom.com,guyanaem@erols.com,hagan@cais.com,HKJEmbassyDC@aol.com,icemb.wash@utn.stjr.is,indonsia@dgs.dgsys.com,info@bahrainembassy.org,info@chadembassy.org,info@dg12.cec.be,info@dg5.cec.be,info@embassyofkuwait.com,info@estemb.org,info@finland.org,info@kenyaembassy.com,info@maliembassy-usa.org, info@rmiembassyus.org,info@saudiembassy.net,info@spainun.org,info@stkittsnevis.org,info@sudanembassyus.org,info@turkey.org,info@yemenembassy.org,infolook@aol.com,irishcgsf@aol.com,irishconchicago@aol.com,irlcons@aol.com,irqun@undp.org,itembtky@gol.com,korinfo@koreaemb.org,Kunduwash@aol.com,laoun@undp.org,latvia@ambergateway.com, malagasy@embassy.org,MAURITIUS.EMBASSY@prodigy.net,mecuawaa@erols.com,mikailov@mnts.msk.su,monemb@aol.com mysun@undp.org,nhema@erols.com,norun@undp.org,nzemb@dc.infi.net,osmik@mid.ru,peru@peruemb.org,portugal@portugalemb.org,postmaster@nobel.no,rmacedonia@aol.com,root@k5241.mnts.msk.su,rwood@ap.org,safrica@southafrica.net, Science@roembus.org,science@was.rep.admin.ch,scitech@brasil.emb.nw.dc.us,singemb@bellatlantic.net,slembasy@clark.net,slovenia@embassy.org,svkemb@concentric.net,sweden@un.int,thai.wsn@thaiembdc.org,trade@was.rep.admin.ch,turkmen@earthlink.net,twawashington@mindspring.com,ugaembassy@rocketmail.com,uruguay@embassy.org, vbs-ddps@defence.ch,veronica@embassyeritrea.org,vertretung@was.rep.admin.ch,vietnamembassy@msn.com,vmwnl@aol.com,washington@diplobel.org,washington@embassy.mzv.cz,WDCpe@aol.com,webmaster@china-embassy.org,webmaster@colombiaemb.org,webmaster@embassyofmexico.org webmaster@laoembassy.com,webmaster@russianembassy.org, Webmaster@www.nobel.se,worldservice.letters@bbc.co.uk,yuembassy@compuserve.com,zimweb@zimweb.com,AskDOJ@usdoj.gov,Policy@dcfs.lacounty.gov,LADCFS-SUCKS@Gmail.com,contact@kcet.org,socalconnected@kcet.org,granpachuck99@gmail.com,cpsvictim@gmail.com,fightcpscalifornia@gmail.com,kdesa@mercurynews.com,circulation@bakersfield.com, dogpatch1940@yahoo.com,focustotomorrow@yahoo.com,aunt2all@sbcglobal.net,vickimcswain@aol.com,getinfo@haworthpressinc.com,ProtectingOurChildren2004@yahoo.com,MRRCAZ@yahoo.com,jmcelwee@ncronline.org,CACourtoisPhD@aol.com,darves-bornoz@wanadoo.fr,LMConradi@alliant.edu,therosschildren@yahoo.com,gsweat@usm.maine.edu, saunddan@umich.edu,Ducotelaw@aol.com,jtalancon@ncjfcj.org,pinquiries@dcfs.lacounty.gov,andral@dcfs.lacounty.gov,pbrowning@childsupport.co.la.ca.us,misac@dcfs.lacounty.gov
Sent: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:04:54 -0700
Subject: Los Angeles County DCFS Child Social Workers violating Laws

TO: Philip L. Browning Los Angeles County Children and Family Services

Phone: (213) 351-5600 Fax: (213) 427-6125

E-mail: pinquiries@dcfs.lacounty.gov, pbrowning@childsupport.co.la.ca.us, Philip L. Browning finkld@dcfs.lacounty.gov, Paul Freedlund lmandel@bos.lacounty.gov, Lisa Mandel mayor@lacity.com, Antonio Villaraigosa

Morning Mr. Browning,

Los Angeles County DCFS Child Social Workers are violating Local Laws, Court Orders, DCFS Policies / Procedures and Violating my Daughter’s and Granddaughter’s rights as victim of crime in the California Constitution and the U. S. Constitution. Whether it’s the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) or U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) they would be in the eyes of the world as violators of International laws. How can the United States dictate to other countries how to treat human beings when they don’t enforce their own laws at all levels of government?

Los Angeles County Child Abuse and Neglect Protocol (ICAN) were developed for all agencies to work together quickly and efficiently to assure the protection, safety, and health an alleged child abuse and neglect. The Los Angeles County Child Abuse and Neglect indicated in their Mission Statement:

“Protocol is promulgated to serve as a guideline for professionals countywide to protect victims of abuse, to maximize successful interventions, to hold abusers responsible and accountable for the harm done, and to prevent new victimizations.”

I have sent to you the attached letter once before with no response from you concerning children’s court case CK90067and Jason Moncibais DUI Arrest report, which I have sent to various officials at DCFS and to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, but apparently they have no concerns in the regards to the continuation of our granddaughter being abused, molested and endangered by her father Jason Moncibais and the paternal grandfather Sal Moncibais and step-grandmother Margaret Killeen.

Deviation from these guidelines will not promote protection to the children who are victims of abuse and neglect, our granddaughter is an example of that deviation.

Please see the attached letter and I do have the California Highway Patrol Narrative/Supplemental dated February 4, 2012 and the Arrest Investigation report dated February 25, 2012. Please note the time when Jason Moncibais was tested for alcohol levels was over 2 ½ hours after he picked up our granddaughter at the LAPD Topanga Police Station and it was entered as .23 @ 1409 hrs .26 @ 1413 hrs and .22 @ 1417 hrs in the report. Blood Alcohol Count levels diminishes .015 per hour and just think what his BAC level was at the time when CHP officer Hines first observed Jason Moncibais driving into the church parking lot with our granddaughter in the vehicle, as high as .29 BAC @ 1210 hrs. My daughter requested for an officer at the front counter to check if Jason Moncibais was intoxicated and the officer refused to check him, because they do not want to get involved. LAPD at their finest moment, “Serve and Protect”

CHP Officer Hines observed on 02/04/2012 at about 12:11 PM a white pickup truck drive into the parking lot and stop directly in front of the stairs where he was standing and saw a Hispanic male (Jason Moncibais) and a young female child.

CHP Officer Hernandez observed the subject exit vehicle and he lost his grip and almost fell out of the vehicle. While the office was speaking with him he smelled the overwhelming odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath, his eyes were red and watery. Mr. Moncibais failed the pre-field sobriety tests.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87504041/Los-Angeles-County-DCFS-Child-Social-Workers-violating-Laws-March-262012-Letter-0001#fullscreen