Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for January, 2011

Family Court Mafia: AMPP Mothers Are Coming For You!

We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it any more!!

http://AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org/

AMPP—Back from the 8th Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference 2011.This is the year of the child.

Until Mothers and children’s voices are heard—We will NEVER shut up- We will never Give up—And we will NEVER Go AWAY

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

www.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org


Rikki Dombrowski: Don’t Give Up – Love, Hope and Empowerment—The Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

Your Mother Claudine Dombrowski Loves you and she is here for you when you can finally break free. She has not given up, she will not shut up and she will not go away!

 

Granny died and her grand-daughter was not allowed to attend her funeral.

This tribute video was made– for three generations lost—destroyed by the Family Courts.

Granny, Mom and Rikki three hearts united across the universe and above and beyond the Shawnee County Courthouse MAFIA.

Rikki Dombrowski– Run Like The Wind

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/08/2…

"DANGEROUS" CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI ATTENDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RALLY: DOES SHE FACE JUDICIAL RETALIATION AGAIN?

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/10/2…

Hope Love Power and enlightenment

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow,

I am the sun on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn rain.

 

When you awaken in the morning’s hush,

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

 

Do not stand at my grave and weep

I am not there; I do not sleep.

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

I am not there; I did not die.

by, Mary Elizabeth Frye

 

Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas)

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas

Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) The last time I did court watch for protective mother CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, I called my subsequent posting on the experience "Showdown in Shawnee County." See the post here:

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02/showdown-in-shawnee-county-we-finally.html

I can’t even call the hearing held on October 19, 2010 a showdown. It was just a sham.

Let’s do a little review. Claudine is a battered mother who lost custody of her only daughter in an ex parte hearing in 2004. (Ex parte means the mother wasn’t even represented at the hearing.) Since then, she has had very little visitation. The hearing in January 2010 (see post above) was supposed to fix that. And finally, Claudine was awarded two hours of unsupervised visitation on Sunday and telephone contact twice a week. We figured it was a start.

Well, this was not to be. And not because of anything Claudine did.

As Claudine testified, visitation went well. She taught her now teenage daughter to drive. They shopped. They went to Barnes and Noble. They talked about girl stuff. Boy stuff. Just like any other mother and daughter. In fact, Claudine was able to enjoy her first mother’s day with her daughter in ten years. There were no negative interactions. In fact, it looked like some serious healing was going on.

And in that lays the problem. You see, abusers and their enablers don’t like healing. They find that supremely threatening to their power and control. So of course, the process must be stopped lest their domination of the child and the overall "situation" be compromised.

So in May 2010, all visitation stopped at Dad HAL RICHARDSON’s personal discretion–which he admitted during his own testimony. He made the unilateral decision that he would no longer take his daughter to the law enforcement center for visitation (presumably at her "request"–but more on that later.) He made sure that during the times of designated phone contact, the phone was never answered as it was set on fax. (67 Direct Contempt’s Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered–though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details….) But of course, Dad didn’t exactly encourage or welcome contact either–that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.

But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren’t even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)

Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn’t "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court’s rules regarding discussion of this case.

All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn’t even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy’s elbow the whole time.

Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent’s attempt to discuss court matters–ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn’t be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents’ legal issues, which I’m sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.

I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn’t play any part of this.

Under Kansas law, visitation isn’t shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.

Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants–except in private to her own mother.

And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately–either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.

So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.

No, once again our major concern was Claudine’s political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine’s first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)

But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY’s blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I’m not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can’t shut us up.

And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarrass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine’s "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman–no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes–earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody’s facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won’t give her name, though it’s in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.

So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine’s facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine’s facebook page, too–through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook–even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you’ll find articles and links about those cases as well.

And all this policing of Claudine’s personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON P. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can’t even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.

And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn’t like is that–as they put it–this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don’t like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don’t even like Claudine’s facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine–apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn’t see.)

So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!

Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court’s decision is–after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can’t really speak her mind–not as long as she’s a minor and dependent on her father.

We are not optimistic as to the outcome.

But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system’s control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about.

Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.

But at least it’s something to hope for.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1CN6yB4FW

 

Claudine Dombrowski and the love for her Daughter Rikki Dombrowski – Fly High Fly Free— they can not chain the wind, no matter how hard they try.


Did Maui Judge Tanaka Give Baby to Abuser Contrary to Law?

Courtesy AngelGroup

A domestic violence survivor, Maria Styke-Marquez, appears alone in Judge Keith Tanaka’s Second Circuit courtroom where, according to documents filed by the perpetrator’s attorney, Mimi DeJardins, the judge will grant her abuser’s request to permanently relocate to Minnesota with the former couple’s 2 1/2 year-old daughter, removing her not only from the island of her birth, but from her mother.

The child’s father, Bruce Anthony Sotelo Jr., was convicted and held in jail for beating a pregnant Ms. Styke-Marquez so severely in 2007 that the 4 month-old baby she was carrying may have died as a result of the attack that left Ms. Styke-Marquez with a concussion, broken ribs, cracked teeth, a split lip and contusions.

Hawaii State Statute 571-46(9) perpetrators of family violence are not candidates for custody of their children, yet in September, Judge Tanaka ruled to give full physical/legal custody of the little girl to the man who put her mother in the hospital. Is that contrary to statute? Not if facts support the ruling.

Financially devastated from the litigation her abuser has put her through, Ms. Styke-Marquez, unable to afford an attorney, walked into the courtroom alone to face her abuser (who as recently as November 19th has a criminal contempt charge lodged against him), his attorney (who is also a Per Diem judge) and a judge who has already ruled against he. "My last and only hope to save my daughter is to call public attention to what’s going on and I’m not the only one this is happening to – I know so many other domestic violence survivors who have lost custody of their

children to their perpetrators as well which only tells me that this is no small problem. I’m a protective parent, not a perfect one, and never tried to keep our daughter from her father so I can’t understand how this is being allowed to happen" says Ms. Styke-Marquez.

She reportedly collapsed in courtroom, and was transported to hospital and the hearing continued without her.

Final outcome of the hearing is at this time, unknown. But words from the Judiciary allege factual mistakes and erroneous statements of law by Angels.

Comments

-1#4 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:13

Tanaka allowed him to move so he can live with his parents rent free and work as a food server for 7.25 an hour when as a nurse i can make 35.00 an hour, how does that make sense? and for him to rip her away from her mother who nursed on MY breasts, and took care of her better than they ever can????? My question to Tanaka is, What happened to you? What happened in your marriage or your high school love, some woman must have hurt you extremely bad and it must have been with children or you just know the way to get back at them or hurt the woman who has hurt you is through their children, because you men all know that our hearts mend after leaving you, actually our life’s our better without you men in em…..so you men see this and know the only way to truly beat us once again is through our children! I’m considering having an investigation done on Tanaka to see about the women in his past and to see who he was abusive to? Tanaka is to evil you can see it in his eyes, beetle eyes- hatred

Quote

-1#3 mia kai 2011-01-23 21:05

I have filed asking for a "New trial and or alternative reconsideration on his decision, but we all know he will deny this, I had filed an emergency stay on 12-30-10 and he put it on the calender for 1-26-11 at 1:30pm but still allowed for my angel to be moved to the mainland without even saying goodbye to her primary attachment "me- her mother"… How can "paradise" be so corrupted? Bruce may have beat me and terminated my pregnancy, and I dealt with that by leaving him and living my life for my then 5 month pregnancy (I was 5 months prego when he started to push me again, so I kicked him out for good) and then I had my precious angel Malie alone in the hospital and raised her by myself working as a nurse and then he wants to take take her from me because he seen I picked up and was living well without him and plus they upped his CS from $50.00 a month to $780.00 a month, this is when his mother stepped in and said her son will not give me that money and they hired Desjardins

Quote

-1#2 mia kai 2011-01-23 20:50

YES this BEAST of a Judge did give my precious angel to my abuser. When I had filed for a pre-trial before my trial to ask for a "custody evaluator and a GAL appointed, he denied it, and during the trial in the beginning I asked for him to reconsider because this would be a "traumatic life changing experience to be separated across the ocean from her mother" and he the BEAST stated "well you just declared yourself to be indigent so how are you going to pay for one?" I said, I am a mother,a protective mother at that and this is my precious little babies life we are talking about, I’m positive given the opportunity to be evaluated I will find the monies to pay for one". He said NO!!!!!!! and allowed my abuser and to the abuser’s own flesh and blood to move to the mainland… Tanaka, on the bench stated "Ms. Styke I know you are a fit and loving parent" but b cuz i had to call the police 14 times for custodial interference I was at fault and he said I was putting my daughter in harms way.

Quote

-4#1 valeriemaui 2010-12-04 17:19

Tanaka needs a seat not one on the bench! aeeed

Quote


Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

Joan Dawson

Joan Dawson

Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM

Parental alienation and domestic violence

"I hope there’s more cases just like this, where people don’t want to let their spouses see their kids…I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife ‘alienating’ the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent’s own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse – interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child – are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it’s not just domestic violence survivors’ advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."

That hasn’t stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen 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 court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its 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 tries to produce 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.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It’s easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association’s 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation – even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins’ Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom’s fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer’s mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That’s over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm’s way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who’ve been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn’t until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter’s Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it’s referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence – rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who’ve lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn’t hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence


Join us Tonight 1-20-2011 @5pm CST American Mothers Political Party BTRShow Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/20/still-standing

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM  CST 6 PM EST 

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party

http://vodpod.com/watch/1533683-evolution-of-propaganda?u=ampp&c=ampp

 

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

  • We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.

  •  We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.

  • We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.

  • We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

  • We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.

  • We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.

Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.

Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.

Until Mothers and Children’s voices are heard

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


ROBIN YEAMANS: DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND TAKING CUSTODY SCAMS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS

Interviews from the 2011 Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Robin Yeamans is one of three California attorneys certified as a specialist in both family and appellate law.   Her website at www.divorcecal.com features videos that help people without attorneys.  In this video, she answers Anne Grant’s questions about due process, equal protection, and taking custody scams to the federal courts.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/battered-mothers-custody-conference

 


THE WORST MISTAKES MOTHERS MAKE IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Some very good advice, from the Liz Library:

(1) Taking their children to therapists.  We have yet to see ONE case in which the mother is having continuing litigation mess that cannot be traced back to her choice or agreement at some point to her taking the child in for therapy. For whatever reason. Undoubtedly there are cases in which this is done and nothing bad happens (although we seriously doubt there ever is much benefit). However, in every single seriously fucked-up case we have seen, belief in psychology and bringing the child in for one reason or another is the first mistake, the domino that sets everything else in motion.

(2) Rocking the boat. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Women screw up by rocking the boat when it’s reasonably stable, usually by filing a petition for child support in a new paternity action, or for an increase in child support in a post-divorce action, and less often by filing a petition for modification for purposes of relocation or just because.

(3) Agreeing to joint custody or too much father custody (usually in mediation) at the time of the initial custody determination.

(4) Talking in conclusory language, rather than the language of the senses (what was actually seen and heard), e.g. “he’s abusive”, “the child was afraid”, and language of exaggeration (adjectives) and psycholingo, e.g. “very”, “disclosed”.

(5) Not looking at the big long-term picture. The immediate psychic reward of taking a negative action or saying something obnoxious isn’t worth it.

(6) Having discussions in writing with the ex. Writing should be avoided except to memorialize and confirm “what we agreed to” by telephone, and to send one- or two-sentence pleasant trivialities. “Hi Joe — Junior said he liked the movie you guys saw this weekend. Here’s a copy of the picture he drew of it…”

(7) Relying too much on the lawyer. Except in extraordinary circumstances, litigants should strive to never let the lawyer go to court for anything without being there. Litigants should insist that a court reporter be brought to all hearings and anything at which evidence otherwise is developed for a case. Litigants should never allow themselves to be pressured into making any agreement without time to sleep on it (if it’s really an agreement, it will still be agreeable tomorrow). Litigants should never give lawyers precious originals of any document. Litigants should inform their lawyers that -no- agreements whatsoever may be made which affect substantive claims in the case (as opposed to clerical and procedural issues) without their prior approval.